S E C O N
D I M P R E S S I O N |
Is Nepal a
‘neutral’ State?
The then Prime Minister Krishna Prashad
Bhattarai was summarily advised by Nepalese intellectuals around 1999 and the month should
be August not to speak ‘extempore’ pertaining to Nepal’s foreign policy as
his off the cuff remarks made on such an exclusive issue created more confusion and
suspicions than the otherwise. For instance, the then Prime minister Bhattarai had uttered
a word called ‘neutrality’ and gave to understand the attending diplomats and
Nepal’s foreign policy experts at a seminar held in Kathmandu that Nepal not only
practices non aligned policy in the conduct of foreign policy but "neutrality"
as well. To the best of my knowledge Nepal has never practiced neutrality as such in the
past even at times of grave crises that arose during the entire cold war period. Be it the
Afghanistan episode or the case of the South African apartheid or even the India’s
war with China and Pakistan, Nepal made comments regarding the world events according to
the merits the events thus deserved.
Neutrality is basically an attitude of
impartiality adopted by third states in an armed conflict between two warring states or
group of states. Oppenheim calls neutrality as impartiality which is negative phenomenon.
But neutrality must not be confused with the term non aligned. In fact non-alignment is an
attitude of equidistant from the bipolar powers in time of peace. ( Today it is unipolar
one-upadhyaya) Political scientists say that non alignment is exclusively a peace time
attitude of not taking the side(s) of one or the other bipolar power. Now even with the
demise of the Soviet block, Nepal happily is practicing policy of non-alignment though at
times this policy appears to have lost its real meaning in this unipolar world
understandably dominated by United States of America.
In fact during the seminar mentioned above
Bhattarai as the chief guest at the inaugural session entertained the attending diplomats
and intellectuals through his jocular talks. Yet he made it a point to
"reluctantly" sound that with China also Nepal had good relations.
Dr. R.S.Mahat, the then foreign minister
however, admitted that the Bhutanese refugee problem remained a great issue for the
country as this imbroglio had already made adverse impacts upon the environment, economy,
social fabric and politics as well. "If bilateral talks failed, we are prepared to go
in for any process that sorts out this problem", said a determined Mahat. However,
the fact is that till today, nothing substantial has been made in this regard save a ray
of hope that the Khudanabari refugees , those already verified, might be sent to Bhutan.
Professor Krishna Khanal who once was the
advisor of Premier Koirala and later abruptly resigned surprised many a brains at the
seminar when he divulged through his working paper that "no agreements maintain that
the border between the two countries, Nepal and India, should remain open". He also
subtly hinted through his paper that the open border has got to be regulated. He says
"the two governments must convince (stress added) their respective peoples that
regulation would not affect their normal life and would rather protect them from misuse of
the border by unwanted and unauthorized elements". In the same vein he said, "it
is natural for us to become more sensitive as well as assertive in preserving Nepal’s
national interests". Definitely he was talking implicitly about the Kalapani issue.
However, Prof. Khanal also reiterated that we must avoid what he preferred to call
"over politicization"of the foreign policy issues.
What I could conclude from the question
answer session on that day was that there is considerable chunk of intellectuals including
Nepali diplomats who would prefer a reviewal of the 1950 treaty with India that takes
proper care of the changed context; and that the already dumped Peace Zone Proposal
initiated by King Briendra be revitalized keeping in minds the current South Asian
security environment and that Nepal also should have a defense policy which it lacked as
yet; and that Nepal and her leaders must come to a consensus on matters that were related
with nation’s vital national interests and finally Nepal’s foreign policy must
not centre around India alone as there were so many countries in the globe other than
India with whom Nepal had excellent relations. Some even said that neither we were neutral
nor non aligned. Sounded interesting then.
Prof. Khanal’s paper must have given
food for thought for the intellectuals which I suppose is valid for a vibrant discussion
even today. |
