 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 7, September 28, 2007 (Ashwin 11 2064 B.S.) |
|
Who Is To Blame?
Nepal’s geo-strategic location between Asia’s two major powers is to be blamed much for Nepal’s disorder. At the same time, this geo-political situation is a guarantor of Nepal’s survival in the world map as an independent nation
By KESHAB POUDEL
From bloody Maoist insurgency to pushing monarchy to the verge of collapse and from unstable politics to bloody sectarian unrest in southern plain, Nepal has seen all kinds of political turmoil in the last one decade.
Past experiences have shown that these kinds of situations are not new to Nepal. Geo political reality of Nepal or very existence of Nepal is that of a buffer state as it is the state situated between two equally powerful big neighbors where external domination and subversion is part and parcel of politics.
In their book Nepal Profile of a Himalayan Kingdom, Leo E. Rose and John T. Scholz write, “Small countries situated in highly strategic areas between larger and more powerful neighbors, must by necessity, formulate strategies and policies that reduce their vulnerabilities and exploit opportunities. Nepal finds itself in this unfortunate situation. On several occasions, it has had to face external threats in which the absorption of the central Himalayan region by the political system of north or south appeared to be the issue at stake.”
Whether through the twelve point agreement in New Delhi between Maoists and Seven Party Alliance or sending special envoy at the height of Janandolan II to convince King to give up power, Nepal’s southern neighbor has played a major
role.
Although Maoists continue to maintain ceasefire, seven party alliance government is in power and there is a strong UN’s presence to monitor arms management and elections, Nepal’s political instability as well as uncertainty continues to grow. Moreover, eight political parties are on the verge of declaring Nepal as a republic blaming monarchy as the source of instability and regression.
Unlike Nepal’s southern neighbor, officials from Nepal’s northern neighbor rarely express their comments on Nepal’s internal matter publicly. Chinese have shown that they are comfortable with all kinds of rulers in Nepal in maintaining relations provided that such government respects its security interest. China has already recognized Nepal’s new political realities by sending its new ambassador to present the credentials to prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala.
As both the neighbors have openly said that their priority in Nepal is their own security and that they want assurance from Nepal. As Nepal has been passing through an unstable and chaotic situation created by one of its neighbor, overtly and covertly, other side has already shown its sensitivity towards the new looming threat to its security.
Chinese ambassador Zheng Xianglin’s remarks seem to be in reference to that. He had recently said, “When Nepali people face difficulties and pain, we will take that as
ours; especially when Nepali people face some difficulties to uphold sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any foreign intervention in Nepal will not be tolerable for China.”
Both of our neighbors need assurance for security but various kinds of covert operations launched by one of Nepal’s neighbor against a small and peaceful neighbor would definitely be counter productive for its initiator. “ Nepal’s conflict may cause much damage to it but if this conflict is aggravated, it would definitely be counterproductive for its very initiators. Nepal faces a constant challenge of living in the enlarged conflict zone of this part of the world. It is in every body’s knowledge in
Nepal that the ongoing acts of terror and disorder till now have the source in India as a solo player yet,” writes Ganesh Raj Sharma in his article Nepal in a Zone of Conflict (See Spotlight July 20, 2007).
As Nepal’s internal political forces, which are weak and indecisive, are very much in debate over the issue of Republic Vs Monarchy, they don’t bother much about the disorder and security problems - which are beyond their control. This internal debate is of very little concern to Nepal’s neighbors.
What type of political system Nepal would have –whether it will be a monarchical or republic – it does not bother much to them than the aggressive posture of one power against the other in Nepal.
India appears to be in a massive operation in Nepal covertly to maintain a claim over the security zone which late Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Lal Nehru had propounded at the time of first parliamentary experiment in Nepal under the premiership of B. P. Koirala.
Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had then declared, “From time immemorial, the Himalayas have provided us with a magnificent frontier… We cannot allow that barrier to be penetrated, for it is also the principal barrier to India. Much as we stand for the Independence of Nepal, we cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal or permit that barrier to be crossed or weakened because that would be a risk to our own security.”
Chinese, however, promptly and strongly opposed this view. From historical period, these two powers, in one or other ways, have been making efforts to influence Nepal to protect their interest.
China’s Stand
In the period of Rana Bahadur Shah, China became sensitive about third country interest in Nepal, which culminated in a war that ended with an agreement between two countries in 1792. China’s concern is still there.
The more sensitive objection was expressed by nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek regime of China in 1947 when Nepal participated in Indian sponsored Asian Solidarity Conference. A seven member Chinese delegation arrived in Kathmandu expressing its resentment on whether Nepal was going to tilt towards its southern neighbor or not.
In 1962, same kind of concerns were expressed through a Chinese strongman Marshal Chen Yee. In his historic warning in October 1962, foreign minister Marshal Chen Yi said, “I assure Nepalese people that in case any foreign forces attack Nepal, we Chinese people stand on your side. That said any threat to Nepal will be considered aggression against China.”
The recent statement given by Chinese ambassador Zheng Xianglin indicates that China has taken seriously those words which was expressed by very precise but a well meaning statement reiterating China’s unchanged attitude towards its concern of national security in Nepal.
“Strategists in the Indian establishment are more aware of these continued trends of history than our political actors of unstable political scenario. Our leaders could afford the luxury of stupidity and short sighted selfish interest. Neither China nor India appear to be negligent of each others’ strategic moves in Nepal,” said a political analyst.
“A massive and powerful presence of Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal-India open border are two such important matters which will not allow Nepal to go to an alliance or security umbrella of other,” writes Chinese strategist writer Wang Xung in his book Nepal’s National Defense Strategy and Nepal-China Relation. “ Nepal’s independence is a prerequisite for Chinese security interest.”
Indian strategic writers, too, have their own arguments. “Ever since the elimination of Tibet as the outer buffer, India has regarded Nepal and Bhutan as its inner strategic buffers. India’s security would be gravely imperiled if it were to lose the two inner buffers. Chinese efforts to make strategic inroads and into those buffers thus challenge Indian security,” writes leading Indian strategic analyst Brahma Chellaney in his recent book Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan
Some ask the question, why India’s involvement is growing in Nepal. “ India’s whole move is directed to protect its own security. A short sighted gains is counterproductive against which may bring disastrous results not in the high Himalayas of Nepal but in the coastal areas of Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. Even the Bay of Bengal is now open to both to try their strength. A step towards in the Himalayas of Nepal may bring tides in the seas of south. This is not only about a less than 200 kilometers wide and 1400 kilometers long region where the security interest between the two regional powers is in collision, it is very much integrated with their collision in the coastal areas,” said the analyst.
“Both these two powers of the region are more decisive and dangerous to their neighbors but that is possible only at the cost of their overall peace and integrity. Nepal is assured of the geo-political advantages between the two equally powerful neighbor and equally alert military power,” said the analyst.
Indian strategist like S.D. Muni, too, justifies India’s role. “Being vulnerable to Nepal’s turbulence, India cannot afford to let Nepal degenerate into anarchy. A stable and peaceful Nepal is vital to India’s own security. Therefore India is deeply engaged with the peace process to ensure that the Maoists get mainstreamed into a peaceful and democratic order,” writes S.D. Muni, former professor of Jawahar Lal University.
“ Nepal may burn or it may bleed but the center of destabilization is not going to achieve positive results in its favor by creating unmanageable disorder in a country which is intimately connected with the vital security interest of other,” said the analyst.
For over two centuries, Nepal has been facing external subversions and dominations in one way or the other resulting in constant political instability and chaos. Being a buffer state between two big hostile powers, disorder and instability in political process is unavoidable as long as Nepal’s two neighbors do not accommodate their interests. Thus geo-strategic location is to be blamed for all the problems but it also guarantees Nepal its sovereignty and independence.
