Murari Sharma: Black-and-white world

Are you worried about your future? About the future of your children? We live in a grey world, but when you have leaders that tend to see things only in black and white, you have to worry.  I am talking about the reactions to what Prime Minister KP Oli and President Donald Trump, both sorts of cult personalities, do. 

Cult personalities command blind loyalty from their supporters and aversion from others. Some sections of Nepal praise Mr. Oli to the sky and others view him as someone on the steroid, of course, to treat his illness. Likewise, Mr. Trump is a hero for arch-conservatives, while for others, he is a crazy moron. 

Take Mr. Oli’s recent India visit, for example. Mr. Oli’s party colleagues and supporters have characterized the visit as a grand success. The Nepali Congress Party has said it was a lost opportunity and his detractors have faulted him for leaving out many important issues from the conversation. What is the truth? 

Hegemons often extract advantage from their smaller counterparts during high-level visits or official negotiations. India and China, the regional hegemons, do the same. Who does it overtly and widely, who does it covertly and narrowly, depends on their political systems, level of transparency required by them, and on the scope of engagement with other nations.  

If the leader of a small country comes home from a trip to bigger countries without unduly compromising his national interest, that is a success. If he comes with substantial assistance as well, that is a remarkable success, assuming that the assistance will materialize.

We do not know what transpired between Mr. Oli and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi in the one-on-one talks. If Mr. Oli has not made any undue compromise in those talks, then the visit should be deemed as a success, because he did not give in anything publicly and secured promises of support for his pet projects, rail, and waterways. It is a different question how quickly India implements its commitment.

Those areas were not probably the most urgent needs for Nepal, but when the next election arrives in five years, we will ask Mr. Oli what promises he had made in the last election were fulfilled. Besides, it is a matter of approach to development.

For good reasons, some believe in balanced development; others in unbalanced growth, in which two or three key sectors lead the way to take off. The Soviet Union, which focused on power, roads, and railways, was the best example. So it becomes a question of an ideological bend of commentators.

It leads me to the second subject: Mr. Trump.

As we have witnessed, Mr. Trump is constantly in the news. Whatever he says or does polarizes the United States. For instance, his immigration pronouncements and policies. His arch-conservative base blindly supports his racist, anti-immigration comments and policies as if they are coming from God. His opponents see him and his words as racist.

Similarly, Americans are divided over the Special Counsel investigation into Mr. Trump’s collusion with Russia during the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump and his close supporters view the investigation as a witch hunt. To safeguard the integrity of American democracy, his opponents find the investigation legitimate and essential. Even most Republican leaders want the investigation to proceed to its logical conclusion. 

Mr. Trump’s tariff on import of steel and aluminum and on Chinese goods has received a similarly divided reaction. His core supporters believe he is right, but his opponents worry about the potential trade war that will hurt America, China and the rest of the world. China has already announced its own tariff on American products. 

Ditto about Mr. Trump’s treat to tear the six-country nuclear deal with Iran.

In any democratic political system, differences across the political divide are common. But cult leaders evoke a more visceral reaction from their supporters as well as opponents because of their provocative words and deeds.  Unfortunately,  they often end up harming themselves, like committing suicide or pushing others to do it to make their point or to escape a concocted apocalypse.

That is what worries me. Both Mr. Oli and Trump have become sort of cult leaders due to his unmeasured words in Mr. Oli’s case and his unmeasured words and whimsical deeds in Mr. Trump’s case. They are prone to interpreting national interest  — protecting sovereignty and independence and promoting the prosperity and welfare of citizens — as they see fit and act accordingly.

Obviously, that could prove dangerous if there are no people around them to check their impulses by reminding them that the world is more grey than black and white.

Advertisements

Murari Sharma: Trump, May, and Oli

The world is hurtling towards an unfamiliar territory or the territory that was thought left behind as not good and un-visitable anymore.  It is happening in politics and economics, and it will only end in tears and pain, as before.  Nepal will be no exception.

We are once again going back to rabid nationalism and identity politics that had given us wars, chaos, economic disruptions, and poverty for the majority across the world. From Roman wars, intra-European wars, and European colonial wars across the world, as well as the intra-Asian wars and Asian wars against Europe were all geared to control resources for the rich and powerful countries. This series effectively ended after World War II, when a rule-based global governance emerged to use the global resources for the benefit of all.

The United Nations, GATT, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,  the World Trade Organization, regional cooperation, such as the European Union, as well as international conventions and covenants were the products of the rule-based global governance. Unfortunately, some powerful countries have been ditching them for their narrow national interest, on course back to the pre-World War II chaos and possibly wars and misery.

Leading this regressionist trend is the US President Donald Trump with his America First slogan. He has threatened the United Nations and the countries that opposed the US decision to transfer its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the disputed Jerusalem with serious consequences. He withdrew from the hard-earned Paris climate treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade; has threatened to pull the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

He encouraged Britain, as a presidential candidate, to exit the European Union, which had ended the centuries of wars between European countries and made them prosperous. He has now slapped 25 percent and 10 percent tariffs on the imported steel and aluminum, which may trigger a trade war. Amazingly, he has even tweeted that trade war would be good for America.

The bulk of the Conservative leaders, spurred by the recidivist nationalist impulse to old nationalism and mercantilist desire, inveigled the British people to vote for Brexit promising the freedoms and goodies they cannot deliver and hurt a regional mechanism that has been a bulwark of peace and prosperity in Europe. Now Theresa May, the current prime minister, to have a cake and eat it, has come with red lines that will hurt the British economy and its standing in the world.

Both Donald Trump and Theresa May despise the rule-based political engagement and trade and economic exchange that benefits all, not just a few, though the larger chunk still goes to the big and powerful. For instance, the larger the trade of a country, the higher the benefits for it; the larger the coastal area of a country, the larger the exclusive economic zone and the right to exploit marine resources further afield. But that has not been enough for Mr. Trump and Mrs. May.

While they are leading the journey to old nationalism, they are not alone on this trip. China has been stepping on the toes of other countries in the Pacific as far as the Spratley Islands, triggering territorial discord with more than half a dozen countries, thanks to reviving Chinese nationalism, especially under President Xi Jinping, who has also thrown out the term limits for himself.  Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, is imitating Xi in South Asia. While he started on the right foot, he quickly assumed a hegemonic policy and has now lost Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Nepal.

If Mr. Modi had not imposed the economic blockade against Nepal in 2015 and his functionaries had not directly interfered in Nepal’s politics, as his predecessors were doing, the anti-Indian sentiment, a.k.a. nationalism in Nepal, might not have flourished and the left alliance would not have obtained a nearly two-thirds majority in the general election for the national parliament and victory to the alliance in six of the seven states.  While nationalism has brought the left alliance this far and let it form the government at the center and six states, what will Prime Minister KP Oli and his government will do from this point onwards? Will they follow the toxic nationalist bandwagon or take a pragmatic tack?

Nationalism is necessary to arouse the public to come together, and sometimes, to draw a wedge between them. However, it will not deliver growth to the country and prosperity to the Nepali people. Growth and prosperity require wise management of national resources, unobstructed transit facilities and economic assistance from the neighbors and capital assistance from other development partners from across the world.

For this, Nepal needs a careful domestic policy, balanced foreign policy, and productive external economic policy. Our immediate neighbor’s preferences are different in terms of Nepal’s domestic policy. For instance, Beijing wants strict security control to prevent Tibetans from crossing the border between Nepal and China. New Delhi and Western capitals want just the opposite. China wants Nepal to restrict human rights, whereas India and Western countries stand on the opposite side.

Similarly, in the foreign policy domain, China wants Nepal to be close to it; so does India. Neither will be Nepal’s best interest. In external economic policy, both countries, more India than China because of the geography, want control over Nepal’s natural resources. Siding with one against the other would be counterproductive irrespective of which neighbor did what before now. Maintaining the right balance in these three areas for the best advantage of Nepal and the Nepali people is the challenge to KP Oli, the new prime minister of Nepal.

China would want a return on its political and economic investment in the left parties now. India, having invested in the other parties, would want to weaken the left government and destabilize Nepal. Mr. Oli needs to find a modus vivendi with India so that New Delhi remains a constructive partner of his government to maintain peace and promote investment and prosperity in Nepal. If too much dependence on India has not been good for Nepal, too much reliance on China will not be either.

The question is: Whether Mr. Oli and his government can overcome the nationalistic hangover from the election time and govern is a way that is in the best interest of Nepal. Which is to say strike a balance between opposite external interest, so the national interest can be served optimally. Will he imitate the nationalist leaders like Donald Trump, Teresa May, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi and a number of communist leaders who have been one-sided and dictatorial after getting the levers of power or will he put democracy and progress at the front and center and govern as a wise leader who would go down in history as one of the greatest statesman of Nepal. 

Murari Sharma: An inward-looking America is bad for America and the world

More than 600,000 Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar, to Bangladesh, in recent months. This number is steadily rising towards a million. If President Donald Trump had not withdrawn the United States from the world, the generals in Naypyidaw probably would not have ordered the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Rakhine State.

Some American leaders and celebrities have declared President Trump unfit for his office. Some psychologist and mental health experts have doubted his fitness as well. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stieglitz says Trump “has fascist tendencies.” These things are for the American people to decide. 

I respect the American people’s decision. So I am interested only in how Trump’s policy and personality have been affecting the United States and the rest of the world, including Nepal.   

Donald Trump ran on the nationalist, anti-trade, and anti-regional arrangement agenda and won the election. Naturally, nationalists in general and far-right nationalists, in particular, have felt that his election has mainstreamed their own beliefs. Trump is not one of the mainstream internationalist Republicans, who believe in free trade. And he sees regional groupings and their collective strength to bargain antithetical to US interest.

His personality is volatile, impulsive, and unpredictable. His threat to North Korea or his urge to investigate Hillary Clinton’s already investigated emails, his tweets at 3 am, his Access Hollywood tape, his call on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, his trashing of minority judges because they decided against him in court cases, etc. do not speak for his trust and dependability. 

Already, Trump’s policies and personality have produced some negative impacts for him, the United States, and the rest of the world. For instance, his military general has said he would not follow Trump’s ‘illegal order.’ His attorney-general has said cannot abide by his urge to investigate his opponent. Such cases put Trump’s command and control in doubt.  

The United States has already suffered some significant setbacks on the world stage. For instance, he withdrew the United from the Paris climate change agreement, and China and Europe stepped in.  Washington has lost the opportunity to lead and shape the climate change agenda, and it might miss the climate-friendly technology gravy train.  

Likewise, President Trump withdrew from the Transpacific (trade) Partnership negotiations, but the other countries in the region have decided to move forward with the negotiation without the United States. Washington has effectively ceded the leadership of and influence in the region to China. 

Citing that the agency was anti-Israel, Trump withdrew the United States from UNESCO even though it had rejoined the agency after staying out for several years. The agency will continue criticizing Tel Aviv, now without any moderation from the United States. 

Trump has threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if other members do not agree to amend it to America’s advantage. He has issued similar threats to several other countries. These countries will move on without the United States because they can do it now.

The United States is a major economic player, but it is not as indispensable now as it was 30 years ago. For example, according to WTO, the European Union was collectively the largest trading bloc in 2016 with the trade volume (export+import) of 3,821 billion dollars, followed by the United States 3,706 billion, and China 3,685 billion. China and Japan together posted 4,937 billion dollars. 

Similarly, while the US remains the foremost technological and financial powerhouse, other countries have been catching up and reducing US leverage. China is charging ahead in green technology. America is near the bottom in the industry’s share of GDP. London has superseded New York as the largest financial center.

During President Trump’s recent visit to Asia, the relatively reduced stature of the United States was visible. For instance, Japan and South Korea — where Trump’s trust rating is 17 and 24 percent, almost one-third of his predecessor — did not provide many trade concessions to oblige him. It is yet to be seen whether they buy American weapons in the volume Trump wants. 

China treated Trump nicely for not raising human rights issues and keeping at bay the dumping and currency manipulation issues, which he had raised repeatedly during his presidential campaign. It signed a few relatively minor trade deals. Beyond that, there was nothing to write home about. 

In Vietnam, the APEC countries rebuffed Trump’s single-minded emphasis on bilateral trade and decided to move ahead with the TPP without the United States. In the group photo, Trump was made to stand in the second row, slightly to one side.

In the Philippines, Trump endorsed his equally volatile counterpart, Rodrigo Duterte, who has been killing anyone suspected of being involved in drugs, blatantly violating human rights and the due process of law. And yet, Duterte made his soft corner for China clear as soon as Trump left Manila.

While there is nothing wrong for a leader to promote his country’s national interest, the problem is with the identification of such interest.  The Trump brand fails to recognize the fundamental logic that Winston Churchill had recognized long ago: With power comes resources and responsibility. If you do not have one, you will not have the other either. Paul Kennedy has asserted that the empires of yore rose and fell with their command over resources.

For instance, the industrial revolution gave Britain resources and power to bring much of the world under its control. When Britain was stretched thin, the resource-rich United States powered ahead. The colossal loss it suffered in World War I and II and in the independence of its colonies relegated Britain to the second, even third-rate power. 

If the Trump brand of Make America Great Again succeeds, the United States is likely to follow the British trajectory. To prevent such a course, the United States needs to continue building alliances to share the cost and maximize benefits for its friends and allies around the world.

That brings me to Myanmar. The Myanmar military systematically persecuted the Rohingyas, the Bengali Muslim minority, and the Nobel Prize-winning foreign minister Aung San Suu Kyi did not stop them. She even sought to brush the issue under the carpet, including in her speech at the UN General Assembly in September this year.  

If the Myanmar generals had not witnessed the United States abdicating its global leadership, they would have thought twice before ordering the ethnic cleansing, thanks to the UN provision for humanitarian intervention in cases of extreme human rights violation. To be sure, the provision has been inconsistently implemented. But the mere possibility of it could have restrained the generals.  

As for Nepal, the outcome has been mixed in the past under Republican and Democratic presidents. For example, President Johnson, a Democrat, and President Reagan, a Republican, welcomed King Mahendra and Birendra in America, respectively. Often Republican presidents have been more liberal in providing aid and trade concessions.

But President Trump is different. He wants to cut aid, reduce trade concessions, terminate the Temporary Protection Status for thousands of Nepalis living in the United States, and end the diversity visa program. So, the prospects under Trump are not bright for Nepal. I will be happy if proven wrong.

 

Murari Sharma: Confront Rise of Racism in West

Recently, someone I know told me that a white customer asked her to go back home at a store in London, where she works. Such incidences have substantially increased after the 2016 referendum on its membership of the European Union.

No wonder, England and Wales recorded 80,393 hate crimes in 2016/17, a spike by 29 percent over the year before, according to the Home Office. Eighty-five percent of them were broadly race related — 78 percent race and 7 percent religion related.

Racism is not new in the West. For various reasons, it had taken a back seat for some time, but now it has come back with a vengeance. Should we care about racism in the West?

Indeed, we should stand up to racism everywhere, particularly in the West because what happens in the West spread across the world like wildfire. Western countries set the global political standards and control global commerce and institutions. If unchecked, the resurgent racism will lead to bloodshed in Western countries and elsewhere.

There was a time when Westerners treated non-Whites as sub-human. They liquidated the Red Indians, Aborigines, Maoris, Eskimos, etc., appropriated their land and riches, and consigned them to reservations and to the margins of society.

They colonized Asia, Africa, and Latin America, plundered their wealth and resources, and enslaved their citizens and treated them like animals. In many places in India under the British Raj, for instance, the Indians and dogs were not allowed in. The locals could not ride the same bus and train and could not go to the same school in South Africa.

World War I weakened and World War II destroyed European powers, and colonies successfully removed them and secured independence. The United Nations, established to prevent wars and promote human rights of all, nudged racism from the center. Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans stood up against racism and colonialism and won independence and equality for their citizens.

Some pursued violent means to do so, like in South Africa and Vietnam. Others shamed the foreign powers to do it, like the Indians under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. Yet, much blood was shed in the process.

But racism remained very much alive in Western countries in a major segment of the population, only constrained by the law in the book and propriety in public. If racism were not alive, the celebrated British leader Winston Churchill would not have caused the great Bengal Famine to feed the White British and let the poor Indians die of hunger, arguing that they had never enough to eat anyway.

Or Enoch Powell would not have made a name for himself by being openly racist. Or Ku-Klus-Klan and other White supremacist groups would have vanished from the earth’s face.

In recent times, racism has risen its ugly head once again in the West, and it is being mainstreamed under the patronization of several rightist and far-rightist Western leaders. Start with the US President, Donald Trump, and the United States.

Though Trump has barely escaped personally implicating himself as a racist, he has done everything racists often do. He had paid fines for discriminating against the blacks in his properties. He has hired ultrarightist as presidential advisers. He has demonized minority people, including a senior judge, and patronized White supremacists groups.

Remember his comments on the Charlottesville mayhem where a White supremacist drove a car into the peaceful protest against the far-right rally or his comment about an American judge of Mexican ancestry?

More broadly, a large number of Americans entertain racism in private; otherwise, Trump would not have been the president.

Now Britain. Brexit, the British decision to leave the European Union, is largely a product of Britain’s closet racism. I have already cited the rise racist hate crimes in the country. While some like the UKIP leader Nigel Farage have been openly racist, a large section of the British leadership and public proved to be racists privately.

Elsewhere in the West, too, racism has raised its dirty head. For instance, in the 2017 presidential elections in France, the National Front President Marie Le Pen secured more votes than the socialist and conservative candidates. She lost to Emmanuel Macron, of En Marche, a new Party, bagging 34 percent votes in the second round.

Norbert Hofer the right-wing, nationalist Freedom Party secured the largest number of votes in the first round of the presidential election last year in Austria last year and lost the ballot in the second round by a small margin.  The same party clinched the third place with 26 percent votes in the parliamentary elections there this year.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD), the far-right party, emerged as the third largest in the German parliament in the 2017 elections. Its leaders, Alexander Gauland and Frauke Petry, are in leagues with Farage and Le Pen.

How will this phase of racism end? In bloodshed, as in the past. For example, if push comes to shove in the minorities in the West will fight back. The disenchanted have been already joining the terrorist groups. Terrorism will increase, and so will the revulsion towards minorities, in a spiral.

Sure, those who resort to extremism own the blame for their choice and action. However, society at large that has failed to integrate them or pushed them inadvertently to extremism cannot remain blame-free either. The net effect would be increased acrimony and bloodshed.

Therefore, racism ought to be contained in the West, before it gets out of hand, to protect humanity from another cycle of violence and bloodshed. Though only Western people can do it, the voice of the rest will be important to give heart to the fair-minded Westerners and widen their support in the West.

Britain’s statistics are frightening. In other Western countries too, hate crimes have increased significantly in recent time. If fair-minded people across the world do not join forces to defeat it in the West,  the resurgent racism there will engulf the rest of the world quickly as well.

 

Murari Sharma: Politics of Personal Destruction

Horrible examples spread faster than decent lessons. Politics of personal destruction in democratic countries is a terrible development that is gaining currency now. Politicians, especially those who have no vision, will keep this nihilist politics alive and thriving.

In 1992, then US President Bill Clinton had said, “The American people are tired of politics of personal destruction.” Apparently, it was a wishful thinking of an embattled president, not a statement of fact. Contrary to Clinton’s assertion, such politics has continued to grow in the United States.

The politics of personal destruction — destroying your opponent physically and morally — has been the favored strategy of dictators throughout history to gain and retain power. In democracies, such politics, though existent, had been rarely used in the old days. In the United States, the Federalists, particularly John Quincy Adams, who later became the US president, were blamed for engaging in such politics in 1808.  Ever since, In the US, Republicans, more than Democrats, have used the weapon of personal destruction successfully to destroy their opponents.

The term was first used in 1808 in the United States. The Federalists, particularly John Quincy Adams, who later became the US president, were blamed for engaging in such politics. But it was not widely used until the rise of Newt Gingrich in the United States.

 

Gingrich, the Republican US Speaker from 1995-99, had then said, “We the Republicans are not going to be able to take over unless we demonize the Democrats.” He used this strategy to win a majority for the Republicans in the House of Representatives, minimize President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and stifle his policies.

Ever since the strategy has become the principal vehicle for the Republicans to win political offices. It reached an unprecedented height in the 2016 presidential and Congressional election. In the presidential elections, Donald Trump, a Republican, defeated his opponent Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, with this nihilist strategy. He constantly called her “Corrupt Hillary,” chanted “Lock her up,” and promised to throw her into jail if he got elected.

He had no vision, policy or plan to Make America Great Again, his election slogan. On security matters, he said he had a plan to defeat the Islamic State but did not want to show his hand to the enemy. He said he had an economic plan but never presented it to the American people. He said he would repeal and replace the Obamacare with his best and beautiful plan without ever outlining what the plan was.

As it became clear after his election, he had none of those. No strategy to defeat the Islamic State. No economic policy other than cutting taxes for the wealthy. No alternative to the Obamacare. The Trump administration and Congress are now muddling through those areas.

Most Republican senators and virtually all Republican candidates for the House of Representatives applied this strategy. They endlessly vilified President Obama and his signature Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) without offering an alternative. They minimized the robust job growth under Obama and promised to cut taxes for the wealthy to boost growth, which has failed repeatedly to deliver growth. They castigated Obama for his foreign policy without offering anything credible.

Only last week, Karen Handel, the Republican candidate for the House seat in Georgia,  used the politics of personal destruction to defeat her opponent,  Johan Ossoff, a Democrat. Ossoff’s high-road politics did not win.

The Democrats, who often prefer to run on policy, too have used the politics of personal destruction, though to a lesser extent.  Outside the United States, the Conservatives in the United Kingdom used it successfully in the last two elections.

In 2015, in my view, Tory Prime Minister David Cameron secured a majority in the parliament by demonizing his Labor rival Ed Miliband, rather than convincing the voters on his policies and programs. The conservative media went to the extent of ridiculing Miliband even for eating a bacon sandwich.

In June 2017, Cameron’s successor, Teresa May, a Conservative, demonized her Labor rival Jeremy Corbyn and other party leaders as the coalition of chaos in trying to prove that she was stronger and steadier. Though her party lost the majority by a small margin, she did manage to make her party the largest in the house and retain her premiership.

I do not agree with all the policies and programs presented by Labor leaders Miliband and Corbyn. But I appreciate that they tried to conduct their campaigns on policy and avoided the politics of personal destruction.

Why have the Conservative political parties, more than their liberal rivals, resorted to the politics of personal destruction so heavily and frequently? I have a quick and dirty answer to the question. It works for them at a time their other electoral planks have lost effectiveness. The main elections planks of Conservatives used to be God, religion, nationalism, small government, and tax cuts. But these electoral planks have lost their effectiveness or credibility over time.

The Conservatives’ main electoral planks used to be God, religion, nationalism, small government, and tax cuts. But they have lost their effectiveness or credibility over time. God and religion have lost much of their hold on voters. Conservatives themselves have flouted their commitment to small government whenever they came to power. Tax cuts have made rich richer but failed to boost growth. Remember the Kansas supply-side experiment?

That leaves only nationalism, which by itself is not enough to have an upper hand in the globalized world. So they have combined nationalism with the politics of personal destruction, which works for the Conservatives.

It is not all gloom and doom, though. For instance, Marine Le Pen of the National Front, who took a page from Donald Trump and David Cameron, did not win the French presidency. Emmanuel Macron — a pro-Europe, centrist political neophyte — did, renewing the faith of those like me who believe in democratic politics based on competing visions and policies.

But as the bad money drives out the good money, bad politics drives out good politics. I am afraid the politics of personal destruction might spread quickly in the rest of the world and make the entire planet worse off. I hope the politicians resorting to the nihilist strategy abandon it before the policy-based democratic politics dies a slow death.

 

 

Trump’s disruptive new world order and Nepal

Donald Trump will start shattering the existing world order in less than two weeks, if he governs as he promised during his election campaign. Such disruption may benefit the US in the short run, but it will harm America in the long run. The rest of the world, including Nepal, will suffer from Trump’s policies.

Of course, leaders campaign in poetry and govern in prose. That might eventually turn out to be the case with the US president-elect Trump. But his toxic post-election Twitter messages and statements and his selection of ministers does not presage such transformation.

If Trump does not change himself, he will change the United States and the rest of the world strategically, politically, economically, environmentally and socially in the next four years. I am assuming that Trump will not be impeached during that period.

Incidentally, Professor Allan Lichtman, who forecast his victory, has predicted his impeachment as well. But that is a separate issue for the future.

In the strategic domain, Trump has threatened to pull the US out of the NATO, questioned the ‘One China policy’ adopted since 1971, supported the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Basher Assad of Syria. He has appointed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

A weakened NATO will embolden aspiring super powers and destabilize the world. China may take an aggressive stance towards Taiwan if Trump deviates from one China policy, destabilizing North and South East Asia.

Trump’s praise and his appointment of Tillerson, whose heels are dug deeply in Russian oil, have given heart to Putin to press on in Ukraine and Syria. His praise for dictators has strengthened the hand of existing and aspiring dictators.

Trump has undermined the two-state solution for the Middle East, a mantra of the successive American administrations. He has supported the Netanyahu government’s policy of setting up and expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. He has also appointed a pro-settlement man as his ambassador to Israel.

In the political realm, Trump has failed to win the confidence of leaders at the helm of US allies across the world. He continues to root for his campaign’s “big and beautiful wall”at the US-Mexico border, which the former Mexican President Vincent Fox has called a racist monument.

In addition, Trump has promised to stop regime change and nation building outside the United States. This has encouraged the existing and aspiring tin-pot dictators, who were exercising restraints in the face of American emphasis on democracy and human rights in the past.

In the economic sphere, Trump is likely to trigger a trade war. He has vowed to crush the Trans-Pacific Trade deal, poked China in the eye by criticizing Chinese trade and threatening to impose tariff on Chinese imports and by appointing an anti-Chinese hawk as commerce secretary, and undermined the NAFTA. If America adopts protectionist policies, other countries will retaliate.

Trump might gut the environmental protection gains. He has vowed to pull the US out of the Paris agreement on climate change and appointed a climate change denier as head of the Environment Protection Agency. These measures will lead to decline in US aid to sustainable development in the developing world.

Under President Trump, US aid for developing countries may suffer a major decline in other ways as well. Trump will reduce the nation building aid, which is a significant part of the aid package. His protectionist measures will derail the capacity building efforts of developing countries, which require access to rich markets for their goods and services.

Trump may reorder social values and institutions in the US and across the globe. He has already given a new lease of life to racists and misogynists in the United States and the rest of the world. He himself has mainstreamed anti-minority tirades and misogynistic behavior. He has anointed the white supremacist outfits like the KKK and Brietbert News as mainstream organizations. The racists and misogynists in other countries will follow the American example, without the fear of sanctions.

One of the biggest contributions of Trump presidency could be the elevation of corruption into a legitimate goal of public office. America has been at the forefront of the campaign for transparency and clean government in the past. But Trump is already changing it by refusing to disengage him and his family from his global business, by using his position to make a profit for his businesses, and by appointing many ministers with similar conflicts of interest. As a leader, you lead by example in the corruption field.

All these factors will have direct and significant impact on Nepal. The renewed tension and trade will undermine Nepal’s security and affect its exports and imports. The reduction in US assistance will affect Nepal’s development and environmental protection activities. The US lack of interest in democracy, human rights, gender and racial equality, and in clean and corruption-free government will encourage Nepali leaders to disregard these fundamental values and institutions as well.

But several caveats are in order here. First, the Russian cyber war and the FBI director James Comey’s intervention to get him elected have undermined Trump’s legitimacy and position even before he has moved to the White House.

Second, Trump will be able to do only as much in many of these areas as the Republican controlled Congress will concur. While he may not have much problem with the House of Representative, where decisions are made by a simple majority, he might face major hurdles in the Senate due to its personal and institutional complexity.

Personally, every Senator sees in himself a future president. So Senators often do what is in their own best interest, rather than blindly supporting the president. They, elected for six years, afford to defy the president without the fear of public outrage. For instance, the hearing on Russian influence on the US presidential elections went forward despite Trump’s serious objections.

Institutionally, the filibuster could prove a major hurdle to Trump’s agenda. The Republicans need 8 votes from the Democrats and Independents for the filibuster-proof majority to pass major legislations or ratify major appointments. Further, the situation may worsen in two years when all members of the House and one-third members of the Senate would be due for election.

Therefore, while Trump agenda is definitely scary, how much of it is actually implemented will depend on how much he grows up in the office and how much Congress will support. Let us hope he would abandon the poetry and govern with prose as soon as he moves to the White House on 20 January.

Murari Sharma: Is the World Moving to the Right?

Nigel Farage, the acting leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, said recently in a program in London that 2016 would be remembered as a year of big political revolutions. He made his assertion in reference to the British vote to leave the European Union and the US presidential election.

Indeed, these two votes clearly demonstrate the rightward political lurch in these two countries. But are they the harbingers of change from the liberal democratic political and economic trend of the last 70 years in Western countries towards an illiberal and undemocratic one? If yes, how is it going to affect the rest of the world?

Let us start with the British vote. The British voters, in a referendum in June this year, decided by 52-48 to leave the European Union, after 43 years as of membership, and to build their future outside the economic grouping.

The Brexiteers, the leaders who campaigned to leave the EU, used hard nationalism and soft racism to win the vote. They said they would take British sovereignty back from Brussels, control immigration, secure borders, give British jobs to British worker, and divert the 350 million pounds a week paid for the EU membership to the cash-strapped NHS.

Such nationalist and racist undertones were unusual in Britain after the political demise of John Enoch Powell.

More importantly, the vote clearly repudiated the liberal, tolerant, and globalist worldview that had governed British politics and its main players — the Conservative and Labor parties, which have their marginal differences.

In the United States, the Republican candidate Donald Trump won the election on the plank of hard nationalism, hard racism, hard misogyny, and authoritarianism. During the campaign, he promised to build a wall on the US-Mexican border, to walk away from NATO if other members did not pay more to it, and to tear trade treaties if other signatories did not give the US a more favorable treatment.

Trump called Mexicans criminals, described the African-American communities as crime-ridden, and promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States. He insulted women — from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton to Megan Kelly, a television anchor, to Rosie O’Donnell, a talk show host, continuing his pre-campaign objectification of women in general.

He threatened to put his opponent in jail and haul his critics to court if he were elected, denigrated the US elections as rigged, and refused to acknowledge the outcome of a democratic election if he lost. And he praised authoritarian leaders  and called on hackers to hack into his opponent’s emails.

All this was the repudiation of civil, liberal, democratic, globalist politics and policy that had governed the United States at least since 1945.  That is not to suggest the Republican Party and the Democratic Party saw eye to eye. They did not, but they shared the fundamental values, from center-right or center-left.

That brings me to the question of whether the British and US votes suggest the beginning of a new trend or a temporary setback, in the long liberal political and economic journey started in 1945.

A sample of two incidents is not enough to indicate the arrival of a new trend. We need to wait and see how Germany, France, and other European countries move forward in their elections in 2017. If the National Front leader Marine Le Penn and the AfD leader Frauke Petry win the elections in France and Germany, respectively, it will be clear that liberal, globalist worldview is beginning to retreat, at least in Western countries.

Otherwise, the Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory would be only a temporary setback. However, even this setback might have significant impact on the rest of the world, mainly in those countries that look to Washington and London for political guidance, economic assistance, and military support and those that have rivalry with them. Such impacts would be felt in political, economic and human rights matters.

Broadly, the promotion of democracy and human rights will take a back seat. Donald Trump has criticized US involvement in nation-building in other countries and supported harsh interrogation tactics. So the dictators and human rights violators will be at ease.

But impacts in other areas would be mixed. For instance, if the US pushes it against the wall on NAFTA, Mexico will be more hawkish with Central American republics and reach out to the rest of the world to substitute the lost market in the US.

India, where the rightward lurch has already occurred under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, might enjoy better economic relations with Washington and London but will be more hawkish with its neighbors in its strategic and economic relations. It may consider building walls on its Pakistan and Bangladesh borders.

China under Xi Ping might be more worried about its trade and strategic relations with Washington and less about its human rights record. It might be tempted to erect a barrier on it border to the troubled North Korea.

Israel would be encouraged to complete the wall on its border with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

If Britain does well outside the EU, it may inspire other members to quit the regional organization as well. But if it suffers in the process of separation or after the separation, other countries might not venture into leaving the EU.

In Nepal, the impact of Brexit may be significant in development assistance and limited in trade. If Britain becomes inward-looked after its exit from the EU, its development aid will decline. Any change in trade will be limited, if at all.

The Trump presidency would be more significant for Nepal in many ways, but mainly for two reasons. One, it will affect US assistance to Nepal. Two, Trump’s approach will embolden India and put China on its tenterhooks, resulting in increased tension in the region.

Will these impacts across the world force a paradigm shift, as Nigel Farage seems to suggest? I hope not. Bit let us wait and see.