Submit your Article

Just as the Russia–Ukraine war, initiated by Russia’s  invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, was entering its fourth year, the international community was shocked by reports alleging that the North Korean regime has refused to repatriate the bodies of its soldiers who were unlawfully deployed and subsequently killed on the battlefield at Kursk, instead seeking to preserve them through a controversial “freeze-drying” technique known as “promession.” Even though the Kim Jong Un regime’s atrocious human rights record has long been widely recognized, its refusal to bring home its war dead and its bizarre approach to managing their remains further underscore the regime’s brutality and disregard for basic human dignity. 

Historically, how a nation handles the remains of its fallen soldiers has had a significant impact on military morale and served as a reflection of national dignity. Ensuring that those who sacrificed their lives for their nation are respectfully repatriated and honored is a critical part of sustaining the courage and willingness to sacrifice those soldiers who are alive. The United States, the world’s leading power, tirelessly searches for its soldiers’ remains even in the remotest regions of the world. For example, in the 1990s, the US negotiated with North Korea to excavate and repatriate the remains of American soldiers from the Korean War, demonstrating its commitment to honoring the nation’s fallen heroes.

South Korea also has an organization dedicated to recovering its fallen military members, putting forth every effort to return their remains to their families. South Korea has also continually repatriated discovered remains of Chinese soldiers to their homeland, demonstrating both humanitarian values and respect for national dignity. In stark contrast, the North Korean regime has shown an utter lack of respect even for its own fallen by refusing to repatriate them and instead engaging in an unprecedented and morally reprehensible attempt to freeze-dry their remains. This is a clear demonstration that the regime prioritizes its own security over basic human decency.

The regime’s indecency
This act of indecency by Kim Jong Un’s regime appears to be part of a deceptive attempt to conceal its illegal actions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law. Labeling it a “special military operation” does not obscure the fact that Russia’s act of aggression has claimed countless lives. 

Most nations, with the exception of a few authoritarian states such as North Korea and Belarus, have condemned the invasion and joined sanctions against Russia. Assisting that nation in this unlawful war constitutes an equally undeniable breach of international law. Regardless of this, North Korea has supplied ammunition, missiles and other military equipment in support. And after strengthening ties with Vladimir Putin at the Vostochny summit in Sept 2023, Kim Jong Un escalated his support by deploying around 12,000 North Korean soldiers to Kursk, a Russian territory occupied by Ukrainian forces. These North Korean troops have reportedly suffered approximately 4,000 casualties.

However, neither Russia nor North Korea has officially acknowledged this troop deployment. North Korean soldiers reportedly carry Russian military identification, wear Russian uniforms, and fight as part of Russian military units. According to reports, most of the fallen North Korean soldiers have been found in horrific condition, decapitated or with severely damaged faces. Eyewitness accounts suggest these gruesome injuries result from either suicide drone attacks or soldiers detonating explosives on themselves just before capture.

Reports have it that Russia attempted to return hundreds of dead North Korean soldiers, but North Korea has refused them. Instead, North Korean officials stationed abroad have reportedly been looking into facilities capable of rapidly freezing and pulverizing human remains—a practice known as promession. Promession, developed by Swedish biologist Susanne Wiigh-Mäsak in 1997, involves rapidly freezing human remains with liquid nitrogen at -196℃ and then vibrating and dehydrating them into powder before burial. However, the practice has not been widely adopted, due to psychological resistance as well as practical concerns. North Korea’s efforts to pursue the use of this technique, despite these issues, suggests a deliberate attempt to permanently destroy evidence of its unlawful troop deployment.

The primary motivation
The primary motivation behind the Kim Jong Un regime’s  actions appears to be the fear that returning soldiers’ remains in such horrific condition to grieving families could trigger enough public outrage to destabilize the regime itself. The North Korean regime has rigorously concealed the truth about its troop deployment to Russia, even from its own soldiers. This was recently revealed through testimonies of two North Korean soldiers captured by Ukrainian forces.

They stated that they had been told they were traveling abroad for training. The regime also lied to the North Korean people, telling the soldiers had simply gone overseas for training. However, it is only a matter of time before these lies are brought to light. As casualties mount and concealing the truth becomes impossible, the North Korean regime has begun notifying families of soldier deaths, demanding absolute secrecy while offering compensation such as televisions, electronic devices, and additional food.

No matter how strictly a regime maintains control through surveillance and oppression, parents would not just suffer and do nothing once they realize their children have been sent to die senselessly on a foreign battlefield. Should this appalling reality spread across North Korea, it could profoundly unsettle the population.

The unlawful deployment of North Korean troops to Russia is solely driven by Kim Jong Un’s desperate effort to secure his regime’s survival. Due to its efforts to further develop its nuclear weapons arsenal, the international community has exacted punishing sanctions, leading to collapse of North Korea’s economy and great suffering among its people. Kim’s alliance with Vladimir Putin is seen as a way for the former to overcome these challenges and preserve his hereditary dictatorship. However, sending young North Koreans to die on a foreign battlefield and then preventing their remains from returning to the grieving parents goes beyond being profoundly inhumane and will lead to the regime’s collapse—the exact opposite of Kim’s intentions. North Korea must end its unlawful conduct before it’s too late and begin actually practicing its self-proclaimed policy of “putting the people first.”

The author is director of the Center for Korean Unification Strategy at the Korea Research Institute for National Strategy

The coalition government of Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, formed in July 2024 with promises of political stability, has not been able to function effectively. The two parties have not been able to hold even preliminary talks on constitutional amendments—one of the major tasks for which the two largest parties in parliament formed the coalition. A lack of unified support from NC is among the reasons weakening the coalition’s ability to govern effectively.

The rift within the NC, primarily between party president Sher Bahadur Deuba’s loyalists, and reformist leaders such as Gagan Thapa and Shekhar Koirala, have caused problems for the government. Thapa and Koirala, both vying for the party presidency in the coming general election and eyeing future premierships, have openly criticized the coalition. Their resistance to Deuba’s potential return as prime minister in the latter half of this parliament’s tenure has only deepened the party’s divisions and weakened its commitment to the coalition. Even Deuba’s loyalist leaders like Purna Bahadur Khadka and Prakash Sharan Mahat have hinted they prefer an alliance with the Maoist Center, with NC leading the government.

It took the government 29 days to reach an agreement with protesting school teachers because of the lack of support from the coalition partner. The protest caused significant damage to the education sector with national examination of Class 12, assessment of Secondary Education Examination (SEE) answer sheets and national school enrolment program all affected. The dismissal of Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) Executive Director Kulman Ghising was another such incident. Although an NC minister pushed for Ghising’s termination, NC leaders, including general secretaries duo Gagan Kumar Thapa and Biswho Prakash Sharma, vehemently opposed the decision. The protracted delay in the appointment of the governor is another example of lack of cohesion in the ruling coalition. 

The NC’s wavering commitment has created uncertainty for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. This has forced Oli to frequently seek reassurance from Deuba on the government’s future. Despite Deuba’s public support, UML leaders suspect behind-the-scenes pressures, reportedly from India, and overtures from Maoist Center Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who has signaled readiness to support Deuba’s return as prime minister. Thapa’s suggestions last month that the NC could exit the coalition, citing Oli’s leadership failures, underscores just how fragile the alliance has become.

This internal disarray threatens not only to cause the collapse of a coalition with a two-thirds majority but also to erode public trust in democratic governance. Nepal urgently needs a unified and functional government. The NC must bridge its internal divisions, set aside personal rivalries, and focus on delivering its coalition commitments—chief among them constitutional reform and effective governance. Failure to do so risks plunging the country back into another cycle of political instability. This would further alienate people at a time when some forces are calling for a revert to monarchy.

The teachers’ protest has finally come to an end after a deal brokered by the newly appointed Minister for Education, Raghuji Pant. Former Education Minister Bidya Bhattarai had resigned earlier, citing health reasons, though many believe her departure was due to disagreements with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.

Under the nine-point agreement, some of the teachers’ demands have been met, while others will require legal amendments. The government has breathed a sigh of relief, as ruling leaders feared the movement could be politicized—particularly by the main opposition, CPN (Maoist Center)—and used against them.

Meanwhile, royalist leaders Kamal Thapa, Keshar Bahadur Bista, Rajendra Lingden, and Navaraj Subedi have united, setting aside personal differences. However, the pro-monarchy movement has already lost momentum following the violent protests on March 28. Despite their attempts to rally supporters, the royalist campaign is unlikely to regain traction anytime soon. Their focus has now shifted to securing the release of arrested leaders, including Rabindra Mishra. The government is under pressure to free Mishra and is expected to do so soon.

A parliamentary sub-committee led by Rajendra Lingden has submitted its report to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), revealing an alleged embezzlement of approximately Rs 10bn during the construction of Pokhara International Airport. However, further investigation is unlikely, given the involvement of top leaders. While the PAC may issue directives to the government and the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the strong nexus between politicians and bureaucrats means the report will likely be ignored. Some politicians have already begun highlighting flaws in the report, likely to shield high-ranking figures from scrutiny.

Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai visited India to attend a party event and used the opportunity to meet old friends, including former Indian ambassadors to Nepal and Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh. His media remarks suggest he sought to dissuade India from supporting any pro-monarchy movement in Nepal. “There was no open discussion about the current coalition, but my sense is that India holds an inconsistent stance—neither comfortable with the current government nor seeing a viable alternative,” Bhattarai told the media. During his India trip, he primarily engaged with former Indian ambassadors who favor Nepal’s existing political system.

Nepali Congress (NC) General Secretary Gagan Kumar Thapa has continued his criticism of the government, accusing ministers of inefficiency. Meanwhile, there has been some progress in shortlisting the candidates for the two transitional justice bodies—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons. However, the top three leaders—KP Sharma Oli, Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—have yet to finalize appointments. A closer look at the shortlist suggests the commissions may lack subject-matter experts, raising doubts about their effectiveness.

On the possibility of government changes, NC President Deuba reaffirmed that the current coalition remains stable. Speaking to reporters upon his return from Thailand, Deuba said that the alliance would last until the next elections. Encouraged by his remarks, Prime Minister Oli called Deuba’s statement a serious blow to those attempting to topple the government. He also told the party lawmakers that the two parties—UML and NC—will handle the government duties amicably. However, growing frustrations within the ruling coalition and Maoist Chairman Dahal’s public statements have fueled speculation about an impending crisis. Remarks by senior NC leaders, including Shekhar Koirala, Thapa, and Bishwa Prakash Sharma, have further muddled the government’s future. A recent report highlighted how the NC’s contradictory positions are contributing to perceptions of political instability.

Ruling parties have yet to agree on the appointment of the Nepal Rastra Bank governor, drawing widespread criticism. The delay sends a troubling signal that such unresolved issues could eventually lead to a government collapse. President Ramchandra Paudel is set to present the government’s policy and program on Friday (May 2), which will be followed by the unveiling of the annual budget. It remains to be seen whether the NC and UML can cooperate on budgetary matters, as past experience suggests such discussions often sow discord within coalitions.

Both the NC and UML have launched campaigns to expand their membership bases. NC leaders report a lack of enthusiasm among local cadres to renew active memberships—a worrying sign. Meanwhile, the UML aims to increase its membership to 750,000 within a year. However, both parties face challenges in attracting new members.

Preparations are underway for the Sagarmatha Sambad, scheduled for May 16–18. The government has branded this as a global dialogue to highlight the impact of climate change on Nepal’s Himalayan region. The Sambad Secretariat has invited over 300 guests, including several heads of government.

The social contract is a profound idea rooted in the busy marketplace of human society centuries ago. Forged in the fiery debates of the Enlightenment, this philosophical foundation holds that individuals trade under the protection of the state. Visionaries such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated this contract theory as an explanation for why people prefer to live under rules rather than without them.

In today’s interconnected world, this concept is at work in the global trade landscape. In these networks, individuals as well as nations agree on rules for mutual prosperity. 

Against this backdrop, the arrival of President Donald Trump and his trade policies have stirred up a storm in this global landscape. In 2017, Trump began imposing tariffs on imported goods, targeting countries like China, Canada and Mexico to protect American workers and industries. 

He further expanded these measures after taking office for a second term in 2025, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address a trade deficit of over $1.2trn in 2024. He imposed 10 percent tariffs on all countries, including rates as high as 145 percent on China, effective from April 9, targeting countries with the largest US trade deficits.

Retaliatory tariffs from countries such as China and the European Union could harm American exporters, such as farmers, potentially reducing job gains. If the economic harm outweighs the benefits, the government may be failing in its duty to promote the welfare of citizens.

Globally, Trump’s tariffs test the fragile threads of the international social contract. Like Locke’s conditional agreement, trade agreements are mutual. By acting unilaterally, Trump’s policies risk violating this contract. This could lead to retaliation and market turmoil. Japan’s prime minister called it a ‘national crisis’, and JP Morgan raised the risk of a global recession to 60 percent.

Proponents argue that the global trading system was already broken, with countries like China engaging in unfair practices. From a Hobbesian perspective, Trump’s tariffs assert US sovereignty to protect its citizens, risking a flawed global contract. Yet they also risk destabilizing the cooperative framework that has underpinned post-World War II prosperity.

A philosophical lens

In the swirling currents of global trade, where nations vie for advantage, the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau cast distinct lights on the unfolding drama of President Trump’s tariffs. Each philosopher, with his unique vision of the social contract, offers a way to understand the motives, actions, and ripples of this modern trade saga.

Imagine a world where countries act like wary travelers in a lawless land, each guarding their own treasures. For Hobbes, this is the state of nature—a realm of raw competition where chaos looms without a strong hand to guide it. In his 1651 work Leviathan, he saw nations, much like individuals, needing a powerful sovereign to impose order. Trump’s tariffs, launched in 2017 and intensified in 2025, seem to fit this mold: bold moves by the United States to assert control, protect its industries, and carve out security in a turbulent trade landscape. Yet, Hobbes dreamed of an unchallenged ruler whose word was law. The reality of global trade tells a different story. As nations like China and the EU fire back with their own tariffs, markets tremble and Japan’s Prime Minister calls it a “national crisis”. This resistance reveals a world that bows to no single power, challenging Hobbes’ vision of a tidy, obedient order.

Locke steps into the tale with a gentler view, one rooted in rights and reason. Writing in 1690, he saw people coming together to protect their natural rights to life, liberty and property, forming a government only with their consent. Locke might nod at Trump’s aim to shield American workers and businesses, seeing it as a government’s duty to safeguard its people’s economic freedom. But he’d pause at the way these tariffs were imposed—unilaterally, without the nod of global partners. For Locke, legitimacy hinges on agreement, and actions that stray from the public good risk breaking the contract. When tariffs drive up prices, potentially hiking the cost of an iPhone by 30 percent or adding $1,280 to household expenses in 2025, Locke might warn that the government is failing its own citizens, betraying the very trust it was meant to uphold.

Then there’s Rousseau, who in 1762 wove a vision of the “general will”—a collective spirit where people unite for the common good. He’d peer closely at Trump’s tariffs, asking: do they truly reflect the heart of the American people or do they serve a narrower agenda? Protecting jobs in steel towns might seem to honor the general will, rallying communities hit hard by global trade. But Rousseau’s gaze would stretch further, to the global stage. By favoring American interests over shared prosperity, these tariffs spark retaliatory volleys that could shrink the US GDP by 0.8 percent or cost 740,000 jobs if unchecked. Rousseau might argue that such policies fracture the unspoken pact among nations, sowing mutual harm where cooperation could have flourished.

Together, these philosophers weave a rich tapestry of questions about Trump’s tariff war. Hobbes sees a bold bid for order in a chaotic world, yet stumbles against global defiance. Locke champions the protection of rights but demands consent and care for the public good. Rousseau seeks a collective will that binds both nation and world, wary of actions that pit one against the other. Their voices echo through the clatter of trade disputes, reminding us of the delicate dance between national pride and global trust, between safeguarding one’s own and honoring the shared bonds that keep the world turning.

The heart of the matter

Trump’s tariff war lays bare a core tension: can a nation honor its domestic social contract while upholding its global commitments? Domestically, tariffs address real concerns about job losses and economic decline, but their costs—higher prices and potential job losses from retaliation—raise doubts about their alignment with the common good. Globally, unilateral actions challenge the mutual consent that underpins trade agreements, risking a breakdown in the global social contract. 

The tariffs reflect a broader distrust in globalization, fueled by perceived inequities in trade. Yet, the path forward is fraught. As nations grapple with rising costs and market instability, the principles of social contract theory remind us that legitimate governance, whether at home or abroad, requires mutual agreement and a commitment to shared prosperity.