OPINION> Commentary
|
OPINION> Commentary
|
|
Challenges and scope for China-Nepal relations
By Upendra Gautam (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-07-29 07:29
Sino-Nepali diplomatic ties duly re-established 53 years ago on 1 August, 1955 are poised for new challenges and opportunities. The time these ties were re-established was no less challenging either. Challenges at that time basically pertained to conducting international affairs independently and in the sovereign manner. But the prevailing Cold War sought to expand aggressive designs and spheres of influence in the name of transferring ideology and establishing security bloc. Relatively weak and small nations who were asserting independence to a fuller extent were more vulnerable to the Cold War machinations. China's rise as a "People's Republic" and its immediate weak and small neighbors including Nepal and other countries with different social systems provided a major incentive to the Cold War powers and their allies to reach out to China's these neighbors in whatever expedient ways. In that context it was not easy for Nepal to move ahead in a planned way in re-establishing ties with China. Reflecting over those times, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai said in his speech on September 30, 1950, "China shall never tolerate any foreign invasion nor shall watch it taking place in any neighboring country with folded arms." Withstanding the challenges emanating from foreign aggressive designs and interference, China and Nepal were able to base the bilateral ties on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, including the principles of peaceful co-existence and non-interference in each other's internal matters. Any matter which was prejudicial to China's territorial integrity such as status of Tibet or for that matter its "independence" were never raised during the re-establishment of bilateral ties as Nepal throughout in history - recent or past - never recognized Tibet as an independent state. All treaties and agreements pertaining to Nepal's ties with Tibet were signed between the competent authorities of China and Nepal. Ample evidences to this historical fact are Sino-Nepali Treaty of 1792, Sino-Nepali Treaty of Thapathali of 1856 and the 1956 Agreement between China and Nepal on the maintenance of friendship and trade and transport between Tibet region of China and Nepal. The 1956 Agreement replaced the 1856 Treaty. State leaders who contributed to developing stable Sino-Nepali ties were Nepali kings Mahendra (1955-1972) and Birendra (1972-2001), and prime ministers Tanka Prasad Acharya (1956-1957) and B.P. Koirala (1959-1960). G.P. Koirala, who occupied the seat of premiership for the most part of the Nepali multi-party politics from 1990 to 2008, happened to be more intricately circumscribed by political expediency. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the said period and in the backdrop of China's West China Development Strategy, it was he who was courageous enough to sign six cooperation agreements, including the second road link between the two countries in 2001 with visiting Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji. From the Chinese side, Chairman Mao Zedong, Premier Zhou Enlai, Vice-premier Deng Xiaoping, Vice-premier Huang Hua and President Jiang Zemin not only nurtured China's Nepal ties with a personal touch but often evaluated it highly as a model of state-to-state relations. The bilateral ties suffered a deep shock in June, 2001 when the entire family of King Birendra was annihilated in a Royal Palace massacre in Kathmandu. In hindsight, the condemnable massacre brought to the fore a new Cold War already in the making in the region.
It is a "Cold War" because covert, tacit and subversive games are still its basic operational character. The old Cold War camp which could not deter the successful restoration of bilateral ties between Nepal and China in 1950s seems to have been at work to regroup itself in the new form with the comparative differences in abilities listed above. This camp deliberately plays down independence, national interest and security of the weak and small nations not belonging to the camp in the name of the new Cold War consideration. This camp seemed to be shaken by unconfirmed reports that King Birendra was negotiating hand in glove with the anti-government force or the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M). The CPN-M had since 1996 been waging a "people's war" for "equitable" changes and reforms in Nepal's domestic and international policies. Whereas the CPN-M got started primarily as a home-grown outfit, the West projected it as a China - supported group. And to do so was in their new Cold War interest. China from the beginning denied any link and support to CPN-M. Mistaken scholarship in the West buttressed coloration of the CPN-M in the new Cold War interest. The CPN-M, a mistaken identity in certain circles aside, continued ascending in state political power through a multi-party republican program agreed in New Delhi in November, 2005. This agreement is noteworthy but no less noteworthy is the fact that along with the CPN-M's ascendancy, forces of aggression and interference have also started making their marks in Nepali politics in an accelerated speed. Consequent to the agreement, the CPN-M continuously scored political gains. Wrong reading of history and misrepresentation for divisive political interest however seem to have unwittingly inspired the groups of indigenous people in Nepal and its southern neighborhood to assert their cultural roots, political identity and economic rights. Groups of various indigenous people in Nepal who have always been a foundation of the Nepali nation and economy suffered long in the hands of powerful landed aristocracy of predominantly external origins. Conscious people in the Nepal understand well that imposition of a divisible political superstructure in the name of state restructuring primarily serves foreign motives. The story does not end here. A separatist group in the name of the "Tibetan refugees" in Nepal in close collaboration with the "Tibetan government-in-exile" in India started violating and undermining Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity with daily demonstrations. Though this group's planned anti-China demonstration at this time clearly speaks of its immediate intention of giving a bad name to China vis--vis the Beijing Olympic Games, a closer look at the same time informs that these demonstrations in the longer term inherently target Nepal's sovereignty and territorial integrity in Kathmandu, the seat of Nepal's central authority. History is witness to the fact that whenever China and Nepal narrowly defined their national interest, each suffered by the machinations of the aggressive and interfering forces. So it happened, for example, in 1814-16 when Nepal alone had to fight the invading Britain, and, Tibet did not receive help from Nepal when British India engineered armed expedition to Tibet in 1904. Now climbing down the Mount Qomolangma and, proactively addressing foreign aggression and interference against national integrity and harmonious development, China and Nepal need to promote a comprehensive framework of cultural diplomacy. Contents of this diplomacy should be entrepreneurially strategic, and the guiding principles should be mutual trust and co-existence characterized by courage and devoid of any appeasement. Chinese people have a saying, "Ivory can not grow on a jackal's mouth." The author is secretary-general of the China Study Center in Nepal (China Daily 07/29/2008 page9) |
