The Summit of the Future in September in New York will also discuss practical ways to promote peace and reduce conflicts by endorsing the New Agenda for Peace
Violence. The more I read the news these days the more I cannot escape to think about this word. Apparently, we are on the tip of a major regional conflict in the Middle East, an extension of the brutal war between Hamas and Israel. Bangladesh is in turmoil, the biggest crisis since its independence. Myanmar is still mired in a bloody civil conflict.
This is just what's happening in our neighbourhood without forgetting the more than occasional acts of terrorisms unfolding in Pakistan. In Afghanistan there is an ongoing, unrelenting campaign of violence against women.
Going beyond the South Asian region, there are multiple conflicts going on. Several of them are also easily brushed aside and simply neglected by the international community and media alike. Think about the civil war in Sudan or the violence going in the North Kivu region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Then there is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Even England is mired by far-right violence against migrants.
All these examples do represent different situations in very different circumstances, and we cannot come to easy generalisations nor simplifications of very complex regional and localised issues. Yet, though dissimilar from each other, volatile situations can rapidly evolve and spiral out of control. On top of this landscape, there are serious geopolitical fractures among the super powers. Tensions and rivalries are rising exponentially, and we cannot overlook the possibility that in a medium or long-term scenario, such contentious relationships could derail and turn into the most unimaginable sources of deaths.
The most recent annual report of The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights how the nine nuclear armed nations are continuing expanding their nuclear arsenals. Apparently nuclear deterrence can only happen by having nations scaling up their arms modernisation drive rather than by sharing a resolute commitment of never deploying such self-destructive tools. And yes, we cannot forget the probability of AI driven killer robots, as most powerful nations are investing unprecedented resources to deploy into conflict automated dangerous machines.
I do not want to be overly pessimistic nor provide only a gloomy view of the international state of the world. I do not believe we are getting closer to any major new world war, but it is unquestionable that humanity is facing serious challenges and that, too often, such "tests" do turn themselves into violent and deadly affairs.
Nepal, fortunately, is not facing any imminent risks of war nor is there a chance of any political disagreement or protest in the country getting out of control as in Bangladesh. Somehow the country is a passive spectator of what's happening around the world.
It is true that on many occasions the political leaders do preach peace and friendly relationships among nations. Yet such statements are devoid of real substance and therefore are not taken seriously. These, after all, are the key cornerstones of Nepal's strategic approach to its foreign policy, but there is no doubt that the country could have a much bigger role in the international scene as a promoter of peace.
Let's not forget that there are much smaller nations that have been taking a prominent leadership in the field of climate action. Think of Vanuatu and Barbados for example. Can't Nepal be more proactive in fostering diplomacy over conflicts? Can't the country become bolder in asserting the supremacy of peaceful conflict resolutions over the use of arms?
It's true that the country is one of the biggest contributors of peace-keepers at the United Nations, but this is not enough. At the diplomatic level, Nepal could, politically speaking, do more and assume a more prominent role. There is a platform for Nepal to assert its voice as mediator and peace promoter: the New Agenda for Peace that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, presented last July. It is an ambitious and highly idealistic blueprint that has both global and level outlooks: it tries to promote dialogue to prevent global, catastrophic conflicts while also offering tools to prevent and reduce the risks of escalations locally.
It is so comprehensive and holistic that it recognises the paramount role of women in the promotion of peace and also takes stock of the high probabilities of more and more conflicts over resources caused by climate warming. Why can't Nepal become one of the strongest ambassadors of this ambitious agenda?
The country, let's not forget, is also a beacon of democracy and respect for human rights, and could take the lead in international forums to help influence other nations in agreeing on the key cornerstones of the New Agenda for Peace. The country could become an important partner of Guterres's attempts at creating a consensus around it.
The upcoming Summit of the Future that is to be held in September in New York, will discuss, among other crucial areas of policy making, also practical ways to promote peace and reduce conflicts by endorsing the New Agenda for Peace. It is true that political instability in Kathmandu is an undeniable impediment for Nepal in gaining a stronger standing in the international arena. But as the major political parties in the country are able to work together on some of the most intricate issues like transitional justice or in presenting a common front in trying to attract foreign investments, then it is not impossible to have such a principled bipartisan approach also in foreign policy.
Isn't it worth trying envisioning such a scenario? Nepal, which just over 15 years ago was in a bloody civil conflict, is turning itself into one of the strongest promoters of peace around the world. What a wonderful development it would be for a country that is too often taken for granted, discounted and simply considered as a minnow always begging for money.
