|
NEPAL Between Two Neighbors
Sandwiched between its two powerful neighbors with domineering positions, Nepal , which has been passing through a very unstable political situation, faces challenges in formulating its foreign policy with the mere aim to its survival as an independent and sovereign nation. In formulating the policy within a very strictly limited space, Nepal’s policymakers find it difficult to pursue balanced policy between two neighbors India and China - two strong military powers –, which are yet to settle their long-standing boundary disputes. As the interest of two neighbors increase in Nepal , it complicates Nepal ’s position. Past five decades of experiences have shown the relations between Nepal ’s two neighbors India and China determine and shape Nepal ’s prosperity and tranquility
By KESHAB POUDEL
In his recent official visit to China , Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran reportedly told Chinese foreign minister his country’s great concern over Nepal ’s current political upheavals and economic debacle.
According to Kantipur daily, Indian foreign secretary Saran reportedly put India ’s point of view on Nepal ’s recent political development saying that ongoing political upheavals and economic debacle in Nepal is a matter of great concern to India because of open border and unique type of relationship existing between the two countries. Indian foreign secretary reportedly also informed the press that China showed its concern on Nepal saying that China has long standing policy not to intervene in the internal affairs of any country, - and their policy on Nepal is also based on same principle.
The reported remarks of Indian foreign secretary indicate that India ’s and China ’s views on Nepal ’s current political situation are guided by their own interests. Expressing concern over Nepal ’s political development, China , as usual, hinted that it is against any outside intervention in solving Nepal ’s internal problem rejecting ‘high stakes’ in Nepal by any country. Chinese parameters and Indian parameters are clear.
However, this recent reported statement justifies what Badamaharaj Prithivi Narayan Shaha the Great, said more than two hundred years ago – “Nepal is a root between two boulders” - as still valid. It is the duty of two boulders to save the root, as the latter do not have any space to move about.
India , covertly and overtly, and China , quietly, always show concern about Nepal as both the sides remain suspicious about each other in Nepal . Chinese envoy to Nepal Sun Heping’s remark in eastern industrial town Morang sparked a furor in Indian capital New Delhi recently. His statement to build the road linking Tibetan Autonomous of China with Biratnagar through Kimathanka and his positive response to demands to open the office of Chinese consulate general in the town caused a major consternation in Indian minds. “We have given Kimathanka road the high priority. Among the 10 highways that links Nepal with China , this is the most important road,” the Chinese envoy was quoted as saying.
On the issue of opening consulate general’s office in Biratnagar, The Himalayan Times reported that Chinese envoy said the request to open a Consulate General’s office at Biratnagar could be considered after consultations with the government. “If the proposal comes to the embassy, it can be negotiated with the Foreign Ministry of Nepal,” said Chinese envoy Sun Heping.
Indian media reacted promptly communicating strong displeasure to Kathmandu . In his commentary published in The Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, an international relations expert, writes the government of India has communicated its displeasure to Kathmandu over a plan to let China and Pakistan open consulates on the sensitive Indo-Nepal border. Pakistani Embassy senior official in Kathmandu declined India ’s new charge saying that they do not have any report about such request a nd said the official would be grateful if Indian newspaper disclosed the source of the news. India wants to unnecessarily drag Pakistan , he said.
Nepal gave permission to India to open Consulate General Office in Birgunj a few years ago. “In trying to pressurize India by threatening to draw closer to China and Pakistan , King Gyanendra might end up achieving the opposite- a hardening of Indian position against him. While King Gyanendra might hope that this threat to draw in China and Pakistan would force New Delhi to soften its policies, the indicators are that the move could further undermine the limited support the monarchy enjoys in New Delhi ,” writes Raja Mohan, who is said to be close to South Block’s mandarins.
Whenever India takes steps, China quietly follows their move. India and Nepal started to regulate the border issuing ID card in Terai. This was followed by Chinese request to enforce similar ID system in its border with Nepal .
Sandwiched between two domineering neighbors, Nepal ’s foreign policy challenges are the preservation of the country’s independence and sovereignty since Nepal is militarily and economically too weak to assert the strong pressure from both the neighbors.
India is not alone to press Nepal on its security but there are many examples of Nepal succumbing to such pressures with China . In 1961, then King Mahendra signed the agreement on the construction of Kodari highway, a road project linking to Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, reportedly under pressure of China . “There has been some speculation that King Mahendra submitted to Chinese pressure on the road project (the evidence available indicates that he did not take the initiative) in the assumption that he could use this in bargaining with New Delhi ,” writes late American scholar Leo. E Rose in his article King Mahendra’s China Policy. “If true, this is not how things worked out. The Indians proved unwilling to back down in the face of what they viewed as blackmail by Kathmandu , while the Chinese were unprepared to postpone construction of the road while Mahendra played games with New Delhi . Nepal had paid a high price in economic terms and in its relationship with India for this useless road.”
If the recent indication by China to open consulate in Biratnagar is genuine, Nepal will have very difficult time to reject Chinese request.
“Nevertheless, there are choices to be made within this strictly limited framework, and the consistency displayed by widely different groups of decision makers over a long period is one of the more notable aspects of Nepal ’s history,” writes Leo. E Rose in his book Nepal Strategy for Survival.
Despite the charges of Nepal ’s neighbors, particularly from south, Nepal has very limited space to play two neighbors against each other.
China ’s Policy
China is capable of implementing the foreign policy it desires as its government is of homogenous nature because of the communist party. If it decides to maintain friendly relations that could be implemented in actions also and if it decides to go hostile, it follows that with full vigor. In the last two hundred years, China , whether feudal, democratic or communist, maintained similar kinds of policy pursuing to see Nepal as an independent and sovereign nation. China ’s policy towards Nepal is guided to protect its independence - which will guarantee security and stability of Tibet Autonomous region of China .
“The way the security of Tibetan Autonomous Region was jeopardized when three Himalayan Kingdoms Nepal , Sikkim and Bhutan were under British security umbrella, this threat is even today a sensitive issue. This is why Nepal remaining as an independent state is a most essential question for China ’s security interest. Nepal ’s living under Indian security umbrella is constant threat to China ’s security. Strong presence of Tibetan separatists in India , Nepal-India open border are two such issues which can not permit Nepal to join security umbrella of either country,” writes Chinese scholar and associate professor at Henan University Wang Xui in his book Nepal ’s National Defensive Strategy and Nepal-China Relation. “ China wants to see independent Nepal as guarantee to its security in Tibetan Autonomous Region.”
Chinese mandarins do not openly express their views as Indian scholars do. As former Chinese ambassador to India Zhou Gang said the ‘historic distrust’- the two nations are still locked in, a border dispute over which they fought a brief war in 1962- cannot simply be cast aside. “Until a trust mechanism has been established, it will be impossible to avoid clashes, and India will have its own interests foremost on its mind,” said Zhou reported by Agence France Presse (The Himalayan Times, January 12) recently, responding to evolving cooperation between China and India on securing energy security. “The two nations had much more strength on the world energy stage as a combined force.”
Professor Wen Fude at the Institute of South Asian studies at Sichuan University , also cautioned the two nations would continue to ensure their own interests are looked after first. “It’s hard to avoid rivalry between China and India for energy,” Wen told AFP.
Despite the diplomatic efforts to improve the relationship with India , China is yet to change its policy regarding its security interests. Nepal continues to feel this Chinese concern in its northern border
Indian Policy towards Nepal
After independence, Indian foreign policy towards its neighbors are guided by security perceptions and this agenda dominates all other agenda including the commonalities of many cultural and religious things. After China ’s presence in Tibet , India ’s security concern has risen alarmingly high in all of its neighbors.
“ India ’s relations with Nepal have been driven by its security concerns. India ’s security concerns were encapsulated in the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which were signed shortly before the Chinese takeover of Tibet in October 1950. The text of the articles and letters accompanying the treaty related to threats from a foreign aggressor (read China) and the joint response mechanism,” writes General Ashok Mehata, a retired Indian army general to has in depth knowledge on Nepal’s geo-strategic position, in his recent book the “Royal Nepal Army, Meeting the Maoist Challenge.” “The Nepal Himalayas are fixated in the Indian security psyche as an impregnable barrier, Indian leaders have regarded the Himalayan divide as India ’s security frontier and Nepal as the strategic gateway to the Indo-Gangetic plains.”
India continues to see the security vacuum in Nepal and its whole policy thrust is to fill that vacuum. “ India justifies all means against Nepal to justify its ends. As Nepal ’s northern neighbor is powerful, India seems to support, covertly, the violent groups in Nepal to coerce it,” said a security analyst. “All overt and covert actions in Nepal are directed against China .”
“Some of the concerns of the Indian state’s national security component have directly impinged upon Nepal and India-Nepal relations. India ’s security concerns towards China and the fallout of internal security concerns towards China and the fallout of internal turmoil in Assam and Darjeeling may be recalled here,” writes S.D. Muni, JNU professor and renowned Indian author on South Asia , in his book “ India and Nepal , a Changing Relationship.”
China has homogeneity in the political system but that is not the case with India , which has a government in the center consisting more than a dozen political parties of heterogeneous character. Besides, being a federal state, all states have their own political polarization. Combined together, India , in the word of V.S. Naipaul, is “a functioning anarchy.”
Nepalese foreign relation experts see Indian foreign policy as having very big contradictions regarding its neighbors. Politicians of any ideology, civil societies and people in general are tolerant towards their neighbors. Politicians who have commitments to uplift the socio economic status of common people of Indian do not have grudges and grievances against neighbors. But the most decisive elements in the security and foreign policy infrastructures, especially regarding the neighbors, are too much secretive, non-transparent and without direct accountability to the people.
Critics in Nepal see that since its independence, this top heavy civil and military bureaucracy has prevailed over the politicians in the power. What one see as India ’s foreign policy about Nepal is the designed move by the bureaucracy.
What critics in Nepal argue is that the visionary politicians in power (in India ) have minimum say and their sense of direction is lacking. They feel about India is that compared to them, China has better credibility in all countries in SAARC region except India .
Foreign policy has never been an election issue in India as it is a big country and there is nominal relevance of external affairs issue to the people. Foreign policy remains major agenda in internal politics of other countries and all other smaller south Asian countries have the foreign policy of both the neighbors India and China as their prime concern.
“The Himalayan Region occupies a strategic position between China and India . Although factors of tension and instability are always present in this region – because of unresolved territorial disputes and also political upheavals in Nepal – a new era in regional diplomacy is about to start as China takes steps to realize its priority for economic development in peaceful environment. As hinterland of the Himalayas , Tibet is at the forefront of China ’s strategy in this region,” writes Thierry Mathou, a career diplomat and an associated political scientist with the Department of Himalayan Studies of the National Center for Scientific Research Center , Paris , France .
Nepal ’s Agenda
Badamaharaja Prithivi Narayan Shah, B.P. Koirala and late King Birendra are three legendary architects of Nepal ’s foreign policy. They are associated with the three decisive landmarks in Nepalese foreign policy. The first was sermon by Prithivi Narayan Shah and the second was the assertion of independence by B.P. Koirala. Late King Birendra gave Nepalese foreign policy a positive direction by assuring neighbors that Nepal would maintain peaceful relations with both of them.
The change with the continuity in the foreign policy is severe test in persistent because of apprehension of our neighbors against each other. Professor Surya Subedi says, “Of course, we have to maintain our political neutrality as well as political equilibrium with both of our neighbors. Both India and China , in my view, would like to see democratic and peaceful Nepal where people can compete and prosper. “These two countries have to compete with other western countries and economic giants. If they fight with each other, making Nepal an issue, I do not think they would be far-sighted leaders. So I think their interest lies in making sure that they do not have disagreements over Nepal .
Basic premises of foreign policy of Nepal were formulated during the period of B.P. Koirala. Its acid test was conducted during an incident in Mustang on which Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru over-reacted by saying that any aggression against Nepal will be considered as an aggression against India. Prime minister Koirala taking the parliament in confidence corrected Nehru’s statement and said Nepal has its own independence to decide its own security (See box). That continued the basic of foreign policy of the whole King Mahendra’s period. Unfortunately, late King Mahendra was without democracy.
In addition, late King Birendra added landmark in the foreign policy by his proposal of Zone of Peace. Asserting the right, but with added declaration that Nepal would avoid any security alignment with one neighbor against other. (See box)
Now the country is at the critical stage to live with the historical legacy of the foreign policy in the foundation of which there is a guidance of Prithivi Narayan Shah the great, which was remolded by B.P. Koirala and, further advanced by King Birendra.
Whether in the ancient time or modern time, three main architectures of Nepal ’s foreign policy, King Prithivi Narayan Shaha the great, B.P. Koirala and late King Birendra, who set the foreign policy agenda, faced similar problems.
Whether the two big giants will reconcile or engage in conflict, the situation of other countries like Nepal will hinge on that. If they are reconciling, the result will be peace and stability that will pave the way for peace, stability and economic development. If they are in the mood of confrontation, there will be chaos and war.
The comments made by Canadian Prime Minister Trudo could be reformulated in Nepalese terms - who had observed that it was horrifying to live with two elephants.
Three phases of Nepal ’s Foreign Policy
1. The first phase of Bada Maharaj Prithivi Naryan Shah’s
King Prithivi Narayan Shah stepped into the state of Nepali history at a time when the completely Indian subcontinent was in the ferment. He begins the chapter with the statement: This country is like root between two rocks. Here he shows his fundamental appreciation of the fact that a small nation such as Nepal , lying as it does between two great and relatively powerful nations, has a very delicate position to maintain. He also suggests that there is a need for a healthy fear of the British.
According to L.F, Stiller, S.J. in his book “Prithivi Narayan Shah in the light of Dibya Upadesh,” it also shows an appreciation of the delicacy of the situation and the necessity of maintaining relations of friendship with power. “Maintain a treaty of friendship with the emperor of China . Keep also a treaty of friendship with the emperor of the southern sea,” the King had stated.
2. Second phase of Nepal ’s Foreign Policy - B.P. Koirala’s Assertion of Independence
Indian prime minister Jawahar Lal Nehru’s statement of November 27, 1959 triggered the statement two days later by Nepali prime minister B.P. Koirala about Nepal’s status vis-à-vis Indo Nepalese Treaty of Peace and Friendship. It was delivered to Pratinidhi Sabha (lower house of parliament) replying to Indian prime minister Jawahar Lal Nehru’s statement on 27 November 1959 . Nehru, in the course of his speech on international affairs in the Lok Sabha, had referred to Sino-India border trouble and in that context declared: “May I just repeat what we have declared that any aggression on Bhutan and Nepal will be considered by us aggression on India .” Nepali PM Koirala, then, replied in the Nepali parliament: “ Nepal is fully sovereign independent nation. It decides its external and home policy according to its own judgment and its own liking without ever referring to any outside authorities. Our Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India affirms this.” Koirala added: “I take Mr. Nehru’s statement as an expression of friendship that in case of aggression against Nepal , India would send help if such help is ever sought. It could never be taken as suggesting that India could take unilateral action. Is there any apprehension of aggression from any quarter? The answer is definitely no. We are at peace with everybody and we do not apprehend any danger from any quarter. I do not know the international status of Bhutan and its relations with India , but Nepal is an independent sovereign nation and there can never be any doubt about our sovereignty and independence. Our membership to the United Nations is an instance of sovereignty and independence.”
On December 8,1959 participating in the debate in Rajya Sabha in India , Indian prime minister Nehru said, “The prime minister of Nepal , the other day, said something on this subject and may I say that I entirely agree with his interpretation of this position? (A.S. Bhasin Documents on Nepal’s Relations with India and China 1949-66).
B.P. was a person who lasted merely 18 months in power but allowed American residential embassy in Nepal opening door for super power of the world. During his tenure, he permitted Pakistan and Israel to have a residential embassy. The India-centric foreign policy was no more in his agenda. He was true to his commitment to maintain very good relations with democratic India and B.P had very intimate and cordial relations with communist China in same way. He was sincere to the leaders of India as with the China . King Mahendra promoted the same independent foreign policy. Unfortunately, that was without the support of multi-party democracy.
3. Third phase of Nepal ’s foreign policy propounded by late King Birendra through the Zone of Peace
Late King Birendra through his Zone of Peace Proposal announced the new foreign policy directions. On February 25, 1975 , King Birendra announced the Zone of Peace Proposal in a farewell address to the foreign dignitaries who had assembled in Kathmandu to attend his Coronation. He said, “We believe that only under a condition of peace will we be able to create a politically stable Nepal with a sound economy which will in no way be detrimental to any country. I also wish to declare that in making proposition for the zone of peace, we are not prompted out of fear or threat from any country or quarter. As heir to a country that has always lived in independence, we wish to see that our freedom and independence shall not be thwarted by the changing flux of time when understanding is replaced by misunderstanding, when conciliation is replaced by belligerency and war. Nepal will not permit any activities on its soil that are hostile to other states supporting this proposal and its reciprocity, states supporting this proposal will not permit any activities hostile to Nepal. (Department of Information).
|
