A geopolitical perspective

Bhim Nath Baral

Lecturer, Department of Political Science

Prithvi Narayan Campus, Pokhara. Nepal

Abstract:

Pedestaled on both descriptive and analytical data acquired from secondary sources, this article analyzes the interests of China and India, Nepal’s immediate neighbors. Their interest is examined from security point of view against the backdrop of increased Sino-Indian dynamics of competition in Nepal, using a geopolitical perspective. Security is the vital concept in the study of global politics.

The world political dynamics is changing rapidly and security dimensions are also changing with it. Both China and India are trying to be the superpowers in the world. So, it is natural for them to influence regional and world politics in accordance of their own interest. In the present time, both of them are contesting to strengthen their position in Nepal due to their strategic position in the regional politics of South Asia. Nepal cannot remain isolated from the interest of immediate neighbors. Nepal’s geographical proximity to Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and the issue of Tibetan refugee heightened China’s security concerns in Nepal. India, on the other hand, has also remained highly concerned with the increasing Chinese engagement in Nepal as India and Nepal share a long and open border contingent with the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. In this context of trilateral quandary, it is necessary to balance the China-India paradox because both are equally important for Nepal and its security, peace and development.

Keywords: Buffer zone, geo-strategic, immediate neighbours, refugee, regional politics, security issues, soft belly.

Introduction:

The concept of security is the most crucial aspect in the study of international relations. It has always been an important issue for every individual, society and nation as well. It is needed for all human beings to live and grow and the state requires for survival and development. The concept of security of a nation goes back to the dawn of nation-states themselves. Armies for domestic peace keeping and maintaining national sovereignty have existed since the dawn of recorded history. Civil and national police have also existed for long back. Intelligence agencies and secret services of governments date back to antiquity. While the general concepts of keeping a nation secure are not new, the specific modern English term ‘national security’ came into the common use in the twentieth century.

According to a prominent security scholar, Arnold Wolfers, “Security in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquire values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such value will be attacked” (Quoted, Balzacq & Cavelty, 2018, p. 1). Primarily speaking, security is the state of being free from danger or injury. It is also interpreted as a guarantee that an obligation will be met.

It is also interpreted as the state of being certain that adverse effects will not be caused by some agents under the defined condition. Security is about the identification of threats, to a particular referent object, and the formulation of policy responses to those threats (Mutimer, 2018, p. 56). Survival, safety and stability are concerned with security governance and seem equally applicable to the individual, society, nature and technical system. This concept involves a wide range of actors, rules and practices. The topic has been differently defined by various social scientists, security scholars and ordinary people in their own way. There are many interpretations of the concept of security and each carries a separate explanation to different actors and conditions. Though the concept has its origin as old as human civilization, it still lacks a universal definition. Mostly, the present worldview focuses on the empirical side dealing with contemporary security problems and issues that analyze the foreign and military policies of state (Wagle, 2010, p. 220). It is also found that the concept is viewed through the military centric approach from the eyes of a state. However, the trend of analyzing the concept has been changed after the disintegration of Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This period witnessed the significant decrease of inter-state war and contributed in reduction of traditional security threats (Bhattarai, 2010, p. 28). Its interpretation is made beyond the traditional definition of protection of state.

Protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence are the fundamental security concerns of every state. It was in rigid form in the traditional state system and is equally important even for a modern world order. Even in the recent past, the concept of security was narrowly defined. With the span of time, its meaning touched new height and got widened. The modern concept of security is no more state centric. The concept is added with several new dimensions. The conventional state centric dimension is now added with human-centric dimension (Mantoo, 2016, p. 68). Human beings now are facing with a large number of nontraditional threats like poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, child labor, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, civil war and so on.

China and India are emerging twenty-first century world powers. As a rising power in the world politics, China evolves its economic, political, cultural, social and other influences, which are automatically connected with Nepal. On the other hand, India feels its hegemony with South Asian nations concerning security, politics and culture. So, being situated in critical geo-strategic location, Nepal is a matter of concern in relation to China and India regarding their security matters.

Geographically, Nepal is a landlocked country centrally located in the southern part of Asia. The country is bordered in the east, south and west by India and in the north by China. It shares nearly 1880 k. m. boarder with India and 1414 k. m. with China. Despite its sovereign and independent identity, Nepal has experienced multiple influences from China and India. Nepal’s long run political instability and independent identity is conditioned by external factors especially the vested interest of immediate neighbors. In this regard, the questions automatically arise: What are the fundamental security interests of China and India in Nepal? And to what extent their interest is concerned with Nepal? This paper aims to find the answers to these research questions from the geopolitical perspective.

Objectives and methodology:

Exploring the major security interest of China and India is the fundamental objective of this article. The article also aims to analyze their critical security issues concerned with Nepal. China and India have their own geographical position and deepening security interests. Nepal’s location between two emerging world powers has greater implications. By considering this fact, some intellectuals and other efforts are also made towards this. The article views these literatures descriptively and analytically from the geopolitical approach. The required data is obtained from the print as well as online secondary sources like books, journals, official documents, newspapers and previous research works as well. The data is qualitative in nature.

Theoretical Framework:

The concept of security is the crucial aspect in the study of inter-state relation. In international relations, each relevant theory pertaining to security has its own interpretations. Since the relation between China, India and Nepal seems paradoxical, history tells that the relation between them is characterized by all friendship, animosities, partnership, rivalry and cooperative nature (Baral, 2019, p. 5). In this context, the mainstream international relations theories: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism can be applied in the study of security between Nepal, China and India. In addition, the geopolitical perspective is considered as one of the most important approaches to study this issue of security.

Political realism remained the most dominant theory in the past century and is still relevant in the study of security. It is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power (Goldstein & Pevehouse 2008, p. 43). The classical realists believe in the concept that as long as the state is secure, everything within it will be secured. It is based on pessimistic view of human nature. According to this theory, humans are self- interested and egoistic. Groupism, anarchism, egoism and power politics are the major propositions of political realism (Donnelly, 2008, pp. 150-182). The relations are conflictual and may always lead to war and relation is influenced by the value of national security and state survival (Jackson & Sorensen 2013, p. 312). This theory further focuses that individual is primarily a selfish and power seeking. Individuals are organized in states, each of which acts in a unitary ovary in pursuit of its own national interest (Mingst 2004, p. 66). In the same manner, the two emerging powers i.e. China and India are found active in increasing their dominance in the Asian continent. The already fought war in 1962 along with border and other several issues are not solved yet. Both the countries have equal interest in Nepal mainly for security concerns as Nepal has long and open border with them.

The liberal school of thought believes great potential for human progress in the modern civil society and the capitalist economy. On the contrary to realists, the liberals are more optimistic about the progress of peace and see the rules of international relations as slowly, incrementally evolving through time and potentially becoming more and more peaceful (Goldstein & Pevehouse 2008, p. 84).

From this point of view, China and India are two emerging markets in a more and more interdependent world where trade and commerce shared possibilities towards global governance institution aspire them to work to build foundation of peaceful co-existence. According to liberalists, peace is a normal, almost routine and ritualistic state of affairs whereas war is unnatural and man made. This school believes that democracy will devote less to military budgets and is more likely to win wars. They claim that the world has seemingly progressed in terms of reducing level of violent conflict. Open economies, trade and interdependence has also contributed to this decline of violence (Walker & Rousseau, 2018, p. 29). It is also seen that both of them are trying to be global players, which is impossible without compromising with other powers in the matters related to their interests.

Social constructivism, a newly emerged theory, introduced by Nicholas Onuf and developed by Alexander Wendt, is equally applicable in the analysis of security interest. According to this theory, the international system is constituted by idea not by material forces. It argues that the internal make-up of states affects their international behavior (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013, p. 229). Both, China and India have strong faith in the principle of Panchasheel, non-alignment, values of world peace, principles of international law and United Nation’s charter. Security is determined by several economic, historical, social, cultural, religious and geographical dimensions. Neighbours are bound by the value of mutual respect, co-existence and sensitivity to each other's national sovereignty, territorial integrity, concerns and interests and for the fulfillment of the aspirations of their common people for happiness. The value of international organizations and mutual trust expressed through different forums brings the countries in confidence in relation to the protection of interests including security.

Nepal, a tiny landlocked state of South Asia, shares a long open border with China and India. In spite of long historical tie, the relation between China, India and Nepal is paradoxical. Rivalry between China and India is very old. They had fought war in 1962 and the relation is still cold as they have many unsolved issues.

Nepal also has several cases of debate with them. They have serious interest in Nepal mainly in security matter as explained by realists. Likewise, Nepal’s direct approach with immediate neighbors provides an easy access for trade and business along with the movement of people. According to liberalists, China and India are two emerging markets. They are in a move toward interdependency through trade and commerce, tourism, shared possibilities towards global governance and building of foundation of peaceful co-existence. It is hard to be victorious in the race of being global power without having warm relation with each other along with a maintained relation with Nepal. Further, China, India and Nepal, all have strong faith in the principle of Panchasheel, values of world peace, international law and charter of United Nations. Social, cultural, economic, religious, ethnic and other dimensions are deeply rooted in their relations. These social elements as explained by constructivists make their interest more sensitive.

Chinese interest in Nepal:

History witnessed that the Nepal-China relation is as old as human civilization on earth. This relation was maintained through Tibet, the autonomous region of China. Geographical proximity, economic, social, cultural and several other dimensions have determined the relation between the two neighbors. Such tie of relation has gained a significant momentum after the establishment of diplomatic relation on 1 August 1955. Prior to this, China was a distant entity and we knew very little of the Chinese people and society. It was Tibet that we were interacting with through the Himalayas.

The Chinese engagement with the outside world aggressively exposed mainly after the Liberation Movement of 1949 and its serious interest grew in Nepal after the annexation of Tibet to China in 1950. The increasing interest of China vividly spelled out by Mao Zedong in his Five Finger Policy. China has pointed out Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Laddakh and Arunanchal Province of India as the major areas of security concerns (Basnyat, 2073, p. 164). The five fingers were essentially mean to serve as a ‘new buffer’ zone between India and China after the ‘old buffer’ (Tibet) came under China’s sovereign control (Kochhar & Awasthi, 2016). Despite several differences in size, population, development and power capability, China gives more importance to Nepal for security concerns. Nepal's geostrategic location has made rising China more serious in its security. This matter is mainly related with separatism, terrorism and fundamentalism. The Taiwan case, Free Tibet Movement and East Turkistan Movement for freedom in the Xinjing region are the main security threats for China.

The Tibet issue, Indo-Nepal bilateral relation and Chinese investment in strategically important infrastructure projects are the three major strategic interests of China in Nepal (Singh, 2016, p. 112). The Tibet issue has been one of the major issues in Nepal’s affairs with China. It is considered as China’s ‘soft belly’ (Acharya, 2019, p. 211). The situation is very volatile and the first strategic interest starts from here. Nearly 20,000 Tibetan refugees are residing in different parts of Nepal. China is still suspicious that the Tibetan refugees in Nepal conduct anti China activity under the spiritual, cultural and humanitarian guise, which creates a problem in the relation (Baral, 2019). Despite Nepal’s commitment on “One China Policy”, there are many people in Nepal who have spiritual faith on Dalai Lama.

Officially, every government in Kathmandu has adhered to the ’One China’ policy.

But repeated reaffirmations by Nepal do not seem to have assuaged China. The frequency with which China expresses the concerns on this matter and the fact that Nepal feels the need to continually reiterate its adherence demonstrates the elusiveness of stability on this vital front (Upadhya, 2018, p. 171). So, China takes the matter seriously as Nepali soil can be used for anti-China activity by Tibetan refugees.

China is equally interested in control of Indian traditional influence in Nepal and does not feel comfortable in turning Nepal’s land as playground by external powers. It has a bitter experience of Khampa insurgency backed by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of United States during 1960. Still today China is cautious that to encircle China, anti-China factors are trying to make Nepal as a hub for their task. Besides these, China always held a deep suspicion towards India’s role in instigating the Free Tibet Movement in Nepal.

China’s investment in strategically important infrastructure projects like airports and highways, railways, roads, and hydropower is equally important from security point of view. Nepal and China have also reached a broad understanding of working together under the framework of Trans-Himalayan Multi-dimensional Connectivity Network (ABC Media Group, 2019, p. 318). China is also expanding its soft power measures to make a deep outreach in Nepal which include people-people contacts, scholarship and economic aid to run various development projects. In order to secure Tibet, the major portion of Chinese assistance goes to the security sector of Nepal as it does not want any anti-Chinese activities taking place in Nepal that will affect its security (Jaiswal, 2016b, p. 96). It was in 15 May 2017, Nepal officially became the part of Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) (mega project introduced by China in 2013), which opened the entry of China to South Asia. Besides these, there are regular bilateral talks and cooperation at higher security level in various issues of crime, trafficking, smuggling, terrorism and other matters of challenges.

# Next Concluding issue to begin with Indian interest in Nepal: Ed. N. P. Upadhyaya.

# Our own contact email address is: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com