America And South Asia
-Some Key Thoughts And Voices-

By M.R. Josse

DESPITE the amazing developments with regard to the outcome of the American presidential elections, it is eminently worthwhile noting — and exploring — what key figures in the American establishment have said in recent times about US foreign policy with respect to this part of the world.

SOUTH ASIA TILT: The write-up by Karl F. Inderfurt, US assistant secretary of state for South Asia, is most noteworthy (vide Times of India, 29 October 2000). In a nutshell, as per Inderfurt: America’s tilt is not towards India, but towards South Asia! Indeed, as the explains it:

"Unfortunately, some have misinterpreted our expanding ties to India as a ‘tilt’ away from other countries, as if the US could have but a single partner. But nations, rather like people, can have more whan one friend at a time.

"This notion of "tilt’ has had no real application to our policy in Asia at least since the end of the Cold War. Our relations with India are not determined by our relations with China, or Pakistan, or any other country — and vice versa.

"So, as we deepen our engagement with India, and enhance our ties with Bangladesh, we have not forgotten our other friends in South Asia, including Pakistan.

"There is, however, one kind of tilt which really is a new feature of our foreign policy — namely, an American till towards the South Asian region as a whole according it higher prominence and priority in the overall US approach to the world."

It is naturally tempting to speculate why Inderfurt should have come out with such an explanation in the waning days of the Clinton administration; space constraints here do not allow it.

What is interesting is that K. Subrahmanyam in the same issue of the Times of India has interpreted the Inderfurt exegesis in part as suggesting that Washington will not "treat India as an ally as it did Pakistan and even China informally during the Cold War, when some described the latter as the eastern NATO."

Let us now see how, if at all, American foreign policy vis-a-vis South Asia and China have figured in the presidential campaign.

Although it was Vice President Al Gore — and not George W. Bush Jr — who met Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the latter’s official visit to the US in September, the Republicans have apparently demonstrated greater interest in India than the Democrats.

In fact, as Times of India’s Ramesh Chandran reported not too long ago (17 August, 2000), Democrats had only a few words on India in its policy document and those, too, predictably reflecting the Clinton administration’s "obsessively non-proliferation-centric" approach to South Asia.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS: The document reportedly stated, inter alia: "We continue our work with India and Pakistan to dampen down a nuclear arms race in the sub-continent and continue to urge them to deal with their differences over their conflict in Kashmir with peaceful means."

In contrast, the corresponding Republican document released earlier was "a little more enthusiastic about India acknowledging that "India is among one of the great democracies of the 21st century" even while stressing Washington’s "long-standing relations with Pakistan" and that it seeks a stable, secure peace in a volatile area where "adversaries face each other with nuclear arsenals."

Perhaps of even greater relevance to us here is what Bush and Gore have themselves said — or not stated — on the India, Pakistan, South Asia or China themes, lately.

Gore spelt out a new security agenda for the global age in his best known foreign policy speech during his campaign, before the International Press Institute in Boston (vide US Foreign Policy Agenda, September 2000).

The priorities that Gore elaborated upon therein were as follows: US leadership, Defence, Russia and China, New Security Agenda, And Promoting Prosperity Throughout the World.

Revealingly, there was not a mention of India — or Pakistan!

China, on the other hand, was extensively dealt with. While "strong disagreement" with Beijing was mentioned "over Chinese treatment of Tibet" and US’s "concerns over tensions building between China and Taiwan"" were pointed out,, Gore forcefully stated that "it is wrong to isolate and demonize China — to build a wall when we need to build a bridge."

Now let’s take a look at what Bush said in what has been described as the best-known foreign policy speech of his campaign (at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on 19 November, 1999).

Bush’s theme was "China and Russia — powers in Transition". Among other things, bush declared that China and Russia, two of Eurasia’s greatest powers, "are powers in transition, and it is difficult to know their intentions when they do not know their own futures."

He then went on to add that if China and Russia "become America’s friends, that friendship will steady the world. But if not, the peace we seek may not be found."

PRIORITIES: Bush focused on Defence, Democracy and Human Rights, US Role in the World, China, Russia, CTBT, India, Alliances and International Organisations — in that precise order.

While there are nine paragraphs on the China segment of Bush’s speech and deven on Russia, there are just two paragraphs on India. Even while predicting that "that coming century will see democratic India’s arrival as a force in the world", Bush says that "we should work with the Indian government, ensuring it is a force for stability and security in Asia."

Notably, however, he has this caveat to add: "This should not undermine our longstanding friendship with Pakistan, which remains crucial to the peace of the region."

Tourism Sector Needs More Input

By Mohan K.C.

NEPAL as a land of unparralled beauty with its unique flora and fauna topping the majestic Himalayan range including the highest peak in the world has attracted tourists in ever-increasing numbers since the doors of the country was opened in the early 1950s. But sitting idle without doing much for the promotion of the tourism sector in the country cannot be good.

The autumn and winter seasons are when the country sees greater arrival of tourists than in the other months of the year. The seasonality factor is quite worrying yet not much has been done as how to attract visitors during the other months as well. In the past, not much concerted action was undertaken to make the tourists come during the other months also. But now there has been a growing realisation that tourism products ought to be designed whereby the same resources could be tapped for more benefits to the country.

In this connection the last ten months have not been very encouraging as far as the arrivals are concerned. The figures disclosed for the month of October does not show a rosy picture as there has been a decrease of about thirteen per cent compared to the same period last year. This seems a bit disappointing when the whole industry was looking ahead for more arrivals and balance the figures.

The last ten months saw a sharp drop in the number of tourists coming to Nepal. A reason behind it could have been some negative publicity after the December 1999 incident of the hijack of the Indian Airlines plane. This resulted in fewer Indians travelling to Nepal by air.

Another reason can be cited as the limited number of air seats available. This is all the more so because Royal Nepal Airlines had not been able to bring into operation planes for outbound flights. There were many hassles involved including the method in which leasing planes was carried out. The Public Accounts Committee to put its feet down in many a instances.

The national flag carrier has been dogged by one controversy after another. And its inability to get an aircraft to tap the booming global tourism is a sad story. There are reasons why RNAC has at times gone hastily with its deals and landed itself in trouble. Even now the leasing of Lauda aircraft is in the headlines. Whatever that may be the government has well done to give the go ahead signal for acquiring aircraft so that RNAC will be able to bring in more tourists to the country.

That the attraction of Nepal still exists is exemplified by the fact RNAC has started its twice a week flight to Bangalore and Dragonair will also be doing the same from Hong Kong. Qatar Airways has also started its Kathmandu-Paris flights from the beginning of this month. This all goes to prove that if flights are increased to tourist generating markets the country can see a great jump in the overall arrivals.

Though even October did not see the expected number of arrivals, the hopes now rest on the remaining two months of 2000 to balance the tables. And it is plainly clear that the shortage of aircraft that has hindered with the arrivals.

Just when the picture was looking somewhat promising the hotel employees have been demanding a 10 per cent service charge as tips from the clients. To this the hoteliers have given an answer in the negative. The hotel operators under the Hotel Association of Nepal say that they would rather close down the hotels rather than bow down to the demands. The talks between the hotel employees and operators have come to a standoff with no sign of an amicable agreement at the moment.

Yet, realising the state of tourism in the country, the hotel employees revised their schedule of going on a strike from November 19 to December 11 that is a month later than the earlier announced date. It would be unfortunate for the industry to be held at ransom in such a way. The best option would be to search for solutions which can be agreed upon by both the parties concerned and the government too must do the needful in this direction to resolve the problem.

The bandhs too that occur at different intervals create untold suffering to all. Those who organise bandhs must realise that their shut down calls harms not only the tourism industry as such but the people’s life in general. Moreover, the prospects that the tourism industry holds for the country is great but strikes and bandhs do not in any way contribute for the well-being of the country as such.

The bandhs may be termed as successful by the organisers but it does not do well for the country or the Valley people. All sectors of national life suffers. But as far as tourism is concerned the strikes can never be good. So for the overall development of this goose that lays golden eggs, cooperation of all must be present. Every political party must feel it their duty to support this industry from their own side.

Now that the tourist arrival is picking up with more flights to different destinations, there is every need to add more flights with RNAC also adding more aircraft. All efforts too must be made to promote the country outside in potential tourist generating markets. Whatever that may be, there is every hope of the tourism sector picking up in the time to come.