P Kharel

Strange are the ways how national pride and interests are defined, hailed and downgraded by international community sections that have their own axes to grind. In the process, uncoloured views are hard to come by. The last three decades have witnessed many a supposedly scholarly statements from those elevated to the category of world class intellectuals promoted by their own kind that hardly spares any attention to alternative views contradicting the pattern of their mainstream thinking and long-held conclusions.
If an opinion is aired by birds of their own feather, it gets wide appreciation and wider coverage. This pattern is one of the prime causes for the recent discussions in the industrial democracies about the portents of democracy gradually losing its hold. Throughout history, events time and again reiterate that the dominant thoughts at a given period get a long mileage and the going gets good as long as it lasts. Arrogance and complacency risk causing long-term damage to even the best of ideas.

Inconsistency
The terms nationalism and global values have been defined and interpreted by dominant global powers with enormous economic clout in the post-World War II years. Much of the ideas are accepted by large sections of population across the globe. When it comes to applying the beliefs and commitments to practice, however, those at the forefront of the propagation are too conspicuous by their lack of enthusiasm. Strategic considerations and economic benefits take overwhelming precedence over everything else.
Members of the dominant grouping present themselves in a chorus to steer their agendas for others to adopt as the only route for the welfare of all people at all times, whatever the individual conditions. In other words, unipolar world and cultural cloning are the obvious objective. Should any country assert its sovereign authority to assert its own agendas, it most likely will face aid cuts, economic sanctions and ostractisation by the ones who want their dictates accepted as the best prescription.
If the target of the dominant’s wrath manages to hobble on its own, propaganda machines and its stable of identified “scholars” are pressed into service via commercially successful news media trying to dismiss the defiant “black sheep” as pursuing “jingoistic” nationalism. Likewise, the issues of “poor” human rights record, economic disarray and a host of other problems are attributed to the prevailing bad governance in the state whose government dared to defy dictates disguised as supposedly expert opinions recognised and spawned by long-nourished civil society leaders, welfare activists and PhD holders rated as receptive clandestinely produced or outright expedient conclusions.
Exceptions do creep in, i.e., when clear-cut choice has to be made between “national interests” and oft propagated principles. Ideals are consigned to the backburner if the defiant regime happens to serve other vital strategic interests of the imposing benefactor. That explains why military coup leaders, prime ministers widely believed to have acquired power through rigged elections, and massively corrupt rulers are dealt with kid-gloves - lest economic interests or regional power equations perceived by the globally dominant forces get threatened.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for instance, is weighed down heavily by various quarters pointing out his alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year. What might have been the reactions of powerful industrial capitals if a similar incident drawing fingers at, say, Russian President Vladimir Putin or Syrian leader Assad had been made?
It may be recalled, how some powerful economic world capitals supported the US-led invasion of Iraq, claiming president Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. That no such banned weapons were found was a predictable conclusion. It is also a fact that several hundred thousand civilians were killed during the early days of the invasion, though it took more than a decade for the US to admit that “100,000 civilians were killed”.
Now, a storm in American politics arrives, with the accusing finger pointing at President Trump who allegedly asked his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt on Democratic Party front runner Joe Biden who seeks the party ticket for the 2020 presidential election. The White House has denied it, as is only to be expected. For the strident opposition, the allegation comes handy a few months before the election year sets in.
It’s not that American politicians are not sensitive to their national priorities. They enthusiastically endorse liberal budget allocations for, as an example, influencing the political course in other countries, buying information from foreign nationals, whose governments consider it highly sensitive and hence a state secret. But to the unauthorised information-seekers obtaining the forbidden is a patriotic act.
By the time the US had its constitution in 1787, its political bigwigs were especially concerned about any potential for their president to be influenced, let alone be guided, by foreign forces. That this remains a serious concern more than 230 years after the world’s shortest constitution came into effect raises two significant questions—one publicised to the hilt and the other rarely even grazed past it. The ones who call others of indulging in “jingoistic” nationalism have a different set of benchmark for themselves.

Action pays
Russian President Putin, in power since nearly 20 years as president or prime minister, maintains a high level of public approval rating since the onset of the new millennium precisely because of his success in restoring Russian people’s national pride, controlling the galloping corruption people suffered in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet breakup and checking ruthless economic oligarchs and political mafia culture.
Boris Yeltsin, two-term president who faced strong accusations of rigging elections, was an incompetent autocrat with having plunged his hands deep into the state coffers to the extent that he decided to quit office on the eve of the new millennium, a year ahead of his actual time for completing the second term, in order to enable his Vice-President Putin to step into his shoes and benefit from incumbency for a fresh tenure. India in 1947 ended up being in great awe of anything to do its former coloniser against whom decades struggle was triggered in protest of discrimination and exploitation apart from the independence prevented for Indians. Bharatiya Janata Party worked to change that attitude, and went on to win large successes, especially with Narendra Modi as their prime ministerial candidate in 2014 and earlier this year.

(Former chief editor of The Rising Nepal, P. Kharel has been writing for this daily since 1973)