P Kharel

Intelligent leaders have the sense to grasp the ground reality when confronted by challenging conditions; not all possess the sensitivity to make due assessment of what others suggest. Expediency can be synonymous to deceit when principles are buried the moment an individual power or group interest finds a going against it.
Commenting on the prevailing world affairs recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “As a former citizen of the Soviet Union could see, the problem of empires is that they think they are so powerful that they can afford small inaccuracies and mistakes. But problems will keep piling up. And, at some point, they will no longer be able to cope with them. The United States is now walking the Soviet Union's path.”
The comparison carries a valid point, whereas the US has yet to reconcile to the shifting sands in world march. The type of heavy domination in setting world agendas is being inevitably replaced by more voices for better space in the ensuing decades.
Never did the now-defunct Soviet Union threaten to outstrip the US the world’s biggest economy. Coming roaring from behind, today, Beijing holds Washington by its tail in the race for the top economic spot.
The West overshot the global political runway because of many instances of double standards. Dictators backed by major industrially advanced democracies reiterate this. The anomaly stands in the way of credibility.

Errors boomerang
The West sees China as the single-biggest threat to its decades of domination in the world landscape. Washington’s new focus is on the Indo-Pacific region in general and South Asia in particular.
India’s Pioneer newspaper not long ago editorially said that the United States was concerned about China catching up to elbow it out as the world’s No. 1 nation: “US President Joe Biden’s harp on Beijing is not different from his predecessor Donald Trump’s stance. Biden has said that China’s ambition of becoming the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world is ‘not going to happen on my watch’.”
Creativity in flexibility and pragmatism in pursuits should not condone opportunism and going wayward in matters of ideology and power politics. Complacency catches up with fervent anti-communist bent of outlook regarding the issue of exporting political and cultural ideologies as the ideal prescription for governance. This is well illustrated by the pace in which Sino-Russian in the past decade has accelerated for their better.
China and Russia maintain frequent communication and consistently expand cooperation at a time when the US tries to ease its tensions with Russia and concentrates more on the competitive challenges posed by communist China’s growing military strength, technological innovations and economic speed. Beijing and Moscow emphasise on close strategic coordination between them when dealing with their security concerns and international issues
Washington is bogged down by outdated strategies spun during the long Cold War decades. Times have changed. The new generations all over the world assert their thinking power and air their views more vocally than previously. Non-Americans are unlikely to meekly accept what is manufactured in the US-led West as the “truth” for all in the human community from Pole to Pole.
In May, the US embassy in Beijing apologised for comparing Chinese students awaiting opportunities to study in the US to playful puppies. The formal apology from the diplomatic mission cannot conceal American attitude toward the communist regime that marches confidently as the world’s No. 1 economic superpower within the next few years.
Against such background, Sino-Russian relations have recorded a high point, with a strong rapport between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Putin. As if addressing the doubters, Putin has pointed out that Russia-China relations have reached an “unprecedentedly high level” and the two sides have extensive shared interests between them.
Such rapport never existed when the Soviet Union was the world’s first communist country and China stood as the most-populous nation. On the eve of his first bilateral meeting with the US President Joe Biden in Geneva last month, a confident-sounding Putin said he didn’t expect any significant breakthrough during the summit talks. He proved right after his meeting with Biden ended as a formal meeting sizing the style and approach or each other.
Unlike previously when there were two superpowers, the world scenario now witnesses to the US, Russia and China as the three superpowers. China was not a big factor at the height of the Cold War, preoccupied as it was with meeting the basic needs of its vast population.

Outlook dies hard
In the 19th century, the India-born English author Rudyard Kipling spoke of “the white man’s burden” of civilising the barbarians whose number happened to be stupendously larger than the foreign rulers who never granted as much rights as the citizens of the “mother” country enjoyed. His was an idea endorsed by the colonial rulers to justify their acts of suppression and exploitation of the people and resources in the colonies.
Even with changes in formal policies and public stances in the aftermath of World War I and World War II, the Kipling syndrome continued. A handful of technologically advanced than others dominated the world forums and institutions.
South Asia represents one-fifth of humanity. Pakistan and Bangladesh alone constitute a combined population outstripping that of the US. China’s rivals for international presence and influence are on the lookout for corners potent for spurring troubles for its competitive progress and growing affluence that adds to its superpower status.
The West sees India as a potential for taunting and putting China on constant unease. Had India been as strong as China economically and militarily, the West would have attracted the type of negative attention that the communist regime has faced since the last few years. China’s powerful official news outlet, the Global Times, cautions India against siding with the West against China.
As if to underscore the Chinese media warning, a blatant discrimination against India was once again exhibited recently, when the European Medicines Agency excluded India-made Covishield vaccine in its vaccine passport programme. Covishield is an identical copy of the AstraZeneca manufactured in Europe. The Indian medical sector felt insulted.
What is not to be overlooked is that, when the crunch comes, the West closes its ranks and pushes off the idea of sharing space with others in matters of its economic and other strategic interests.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)