Historically Nepal is the meeting point of two great civilizations and today it is one of the epicentres of competing interests in an impending global paradigm shift. Located between two global economic and strategic powerhouses, Nepal can greatly benefit from developments taking place in India and China today. However, it is essential to realize that proximity adds vitality but also sensitivity and complexity in interstate relations demanding high priority and careful handling. As late Prof. Yadu Nath Khanal, the most respected Nepali diplomat scholar wrote long ago “our foreign policy will breakdown at the point where either India or China looses faith in us and concludes that her vital national interests and sensitivities do not receive proper recognition in our conduct of relations”. Changing global and regional political, economic and security needs and the seriousness of the challenges faced by the South Asian states, particularly extreme poverty and threats from terror networks have made things more complicated.

Time and space have created unlimited potential for aid, trade, tourism, investment, technology and employment. But everything depends on the ability to put our own house in order, restore peace and rule of law, produce exportable goods and services and build relationships of trust and confidence with both our neighbours. Post-1990 Nepali politics could neither forge consensus on national interest nor strengthen institutions and empower individuals of calibre in foreign policy with whom our international partners, particularly two neighbours felt they could talk in confidence. Internal bickering and external interests undermined institutions, undercut rather than support and promote people with potential. After takeover, royalists completely misjudged domestic politics and foreign policy. So, not only did post-1990 order crumble, whole old Nepal collapsed.

Republican Nepal faces the same challenges, only worsened by political turmoil, past rhetoric and current summersaults of parties and people in power. In this age of unprecedented remote viewing and listening saying something here something else there or saying one thing but doing another only expose politics and diplomacy to crisis of credibility and confidence. Credibility and confidence deficits seriously affect Nepal’s national politics and international relations, particularly with the two neighbours. So, one of them feels the need to (volunteer?) “We will help to protect Nepal’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity” while the other feels so exposed that it feels compelled to apply its own “Monroe doctrine”. In this sensitive relationship, vain debates, name-calling and finger pointing only raise risks of more external involvement in internal power contests. So, domestic politics is the biggest problem of Nepal’s foreign policy today; restoration of trust and confidence with all our foreign friends and partners, but most importantly India and China is the top priority of Nepal’s foreign policy making and conduct of diplomacy.

Even before recent concerns that Myanmar may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons South Asia in general and Nepal in particular has been the most nuclear-locked region and nation in the world. South Asia has been described as the most dangerous place on earth. Some thinkers have since long talked and written about the possibility of Nepal becoming one of the central fronts in the global war of ideas. Now some well informed Nepali analysts have started raising the possibility of Nepal becoming a “Kuruchhetra” battlefield. A well known Indian defence specialist has gone so far as to predict a war between India and China before 2012. Both Indian and Chinese media and local language websites portraying each other as the main sources of threat only flare up the underlying tension. Officials on both sides are trying to manage the effects of such media hype. Both sides realize the importance of their growing trade and economic relations. Conflict between them will make their respective dreams of the Asian Century difficult to realize. But for those indifferent to the sufferings of others, who use violence as instruments of politics, economics, religion or tradition and thrive on conflict and chaos what would be a bigger prize than a war between two Asian giants with largest populations and armies, fastest growing economies with huge reserves to spend on arms?

On normal circumstances these views could have been overlooked as provocative propaganda. But considering the post-Cold War global paradigm-flux, the on-going turmoil, extra-regional interest/involvement in South Asia and Nepal’s own painful and traumatic experiences these views need to be examined much more carefully. The central Himalayas may be emerging as one of the epicentres of the impending global paradigm shift. Nepal needs a vigorous diplomacy of confidence building and cooperation to prevent escalation of tensions in our vicinity and certainly make sure no one tries to play one neighbour against the other but instead try to do whatever we can to promote friendly relations between them.

India’s pre-eminent position in South Asia and its economic growth potential will further enhance its standing as an emerging global power. China with its economic and military capability and as a global power is also an observer of SAARC. The informal avenues provided by the SAARC summits could be useful venues for a confidence building measure for peace and stability in the Trans- Himalayan Asia.

Tibet looms large in China-South Asia relations. The Presence of the Dalai Lama and large number of Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal cannot be wished away. The advocates of traditional Tibetan cause may see the present Dalai Lama as their last best hope whose departure from the scene would greatly weaken their cause. Thus Dalai Lama’s age and health could exert pressure on the supporters of Tibetan cause to intensify their campaign, perhaps around some of the anniversaries as they did before the Beijing Olympics. China may succeed to get Nepal to clamp down harder on the Tibetan refugees but preventing unrest within or the outflow from Tibet will depend on China itself. As a large power India can exercise its options. But, given the centrality of Tibet in Nepal’s relations with China, how they respond to the diverse demands of the various national/international actors, remaining steadfast to the One China Policy but without compromising its traditional stand as an open and tolerant society are going to test the political strength and diplomatic skill of Nepal’s republican rulers.

The best interest of Nepal is in nurturing a relationship of trust and confidence with both India and China. Rising China, Shining India and changing Nepal create new opportunities for all sides to strengthen the age old friendship for the benefit of the people of all three countries in the new century. But close geographic proximities and historic cultural ties must be nurtured by sincerity in mutuality of interests and benefits based on respect, trust and confidence.

Excerpts of the paper presented by the author at a Seminar organized by CSAS/KAS held on October 21, 2009, Kathmandu. Paper published courtesy CSAS. Ed.

Comments (1)

yet another pedantic useless rambling .. look around, none of the uneducated, unemployed maoist cadres care about what you're saying. we don't need paper writers, we need technocrats who can get things DONE.

Commented by pasdf - November 3, 2009 @ 5:15 PM

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment