|
|
|
|
China offers bulwark to
Nepal
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - King Gyanendra made himself
powerful through a proclamation on February 1, but
his current position does not exactly appear to be
an enviable one, or best suited for a 21st-century
monarch. He already was the head of state of a
beleaguered kingdom; he has assumed responsibility
of head of the government as well since February,
taking command of both military and civilian
matters. His close aides say the king's present
work schedule runs for 18 hours a day.
Apart from ceremonial duties, the king
holds protracted consultations with chiefs of
security agencies who exercise wide-ranging powers
under the current spell of emergency. Unofficial
advisers, friends and relatives also need time to
convey their ideas and strategies.
While
invocation of restrictive rules on the media as
well as political activities have helped to make
domestic criticism less stinging, reactions
emanating from abroad continue to be harsh and
uncompromising. Restoration of democratic
processes, civil liberties and press freedom is
the issue being picked up by the international
community, for which the king has to find
reassuring answers.
Then there is
the demand that the king order the release
of political leaders from detention and house
arrest so that a conducive atmosphere can be created
for both the king and political parties to evolve
a consensus for a plan against the
Maoist insurgency. This bloody rebellion has
already claimed more than 11,000 lives since it began in
1996.
The United States talks about
democracy, British concerns include a view that
the Maoist insurgency cannot be resolved only
militarily, and other European worries focus on
complaints of human-rights violations by state
functionaries. Nepal's giant neighbor to the
south, India, thinks the king can't make any gains
by paralyzing multiparty democracy.
Extensive industrial, commercial and
cultural interactions across the porous border
give India an additional edge over other
countries. To express their displeasure at the
king's move on February 1, both Britain and India
immediately suspended military assistance, whereas
US President George W Bush's administration has
preferred to put the case in "constant review".
Denmark became the first among the countries
contemplating to stop even non-military aid to
Nepal. Delegates at a United Nations human-rights
forum in Geneva are working overtime to place
Nepal's royal regime under considerable pressure.
"They have to say what they must say and
we have to do what we must do," said King
Gyanendra to a group of newspaper editors he met
on February 24. This remark shows that he is aware
of the negative response his step has attracted in
major capitals, though he might not have
anticipated the intensity.
The king also
used the said media interaction to send a message
to India and the West that since the ongoing fight
is against the terrorism unleashed by Maoists, the
aid flow to Nepal should continue without
interruption. "Why are they shying away from
helping us?" the king wondered. This and similar
other royal expressions can be seen as a question
mark on the Bush administration's declaration of a
worldwide "war on terrorism".
India's
military assistance to the Royal Nepal Army (RNA)
has been crucial, particularly since 2001, when
its strength rose from 45,000 men and women to
almost 80,000 at the end of 2004. The Nepal
police, the Armed Police Force (APF) and an
intelligence agency are the other three recipients
of external assistance. That the bulk of the
equipment and training facilities for these
agencies has come from India is concurred by the
other two players: the US and Britain.
China, Nepal's neighbor to the north, read
the February 1 royal move and instantly described
it as an "internal affair". Russia's perception
looked identical. Pakistan came out more openly
against those who wanted to meddle in Nepal's
unstable political situation. "We believe in
non-interference, and ... would oppose the
interference of other countries in Nepal's
internal affairs," Pakistani Ambassador Zamir
Akram said in a newspaper interview published on
March 11. "We are also ready to provide arms if
that is required by Nepal." This direct offer from
the envoy received more media attention in India
than in Nepal. Several countries in the Gulf and
Southeast Asia, palace sources say, have expressed
their opinion that Nepal should be allowed to
handle its domestic affairs internally.
Japan did show its concern on the
"volatile political situation", but decided to
continue its aid commitments, which are of a
non-military nature.
To confirm
that China is one country on which Nepal can count
as a reliable friend, Beijing is
sending Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing to Kathmandu this
week. Diplomatic analysts compare this gesture with
New Delhi's unfriendly response to Nepal's
foreign minister when he was in the Indian capital on
a mission this month.
Li is the
first foreign dignitary to visit Nepal since the
royal takeover. Li's travel to Nepal comes ahead
of a trip King Gyanendra may undertake in the
later part of April to China's Hainan province,
where a meeting of the Asia Development Forum is
being held at Boao.
Li's presence in
Nepal is being watched as a positive development
taking place within weeks after India and some
Western countries recalled their Kathmandu-based
envoys for consultations, in essence to convey their
displeasure at the king's action which, from their
standpoint, amounted to the death of democracy.
Officials feel that Li's sojourn in
Kathmandu, even if it is just for a day, is sure
to work as a morale booster to the royal regime.
However, they remain non-committal regarding the
possibility of China offering military assistance
(grant or purchase) to Nepal. Kathmandu has not
made any request to Beijing to this effect up
until now.
In 1988, Nepal imported some
defense supplies from China through the
mountainous highway connecting Kathmandu with
Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. But that import
annoyed India, which eventually chose to impose a
trade and transit blockade on landlocked Nepal
that lasted for 15 months. New Delhi's contention
was that Kathmandu bypassed a 1950 treaty
requirement to consult India before receiving
weapons from alternative sources. Kathmandu
rejected this argument, saying that since the
imports were made directly from China, without
having to use Indian territory, the treaty of
peace and friendship did not require Nepal to
consult India beforehand.
Tulsi Giri,
the senior-most member in the royal council, told this
correspondent last week that Nepal had not sent
any specific requests to China or any other
countries for arms and ammunition. Instead, he
hoped India, the US and Britain would soon
reconsider their existing positions so Nepal would
not be compelled to look toward non-traditional
sources.
Nepal, however, continues to keep
its options open. If reports in the Indian media
are any indication, New Delhi is jittery over the
possibility of China and Pakistan filling in the
void caused by India, along with its Western
allies. The reference in the Indian media to the
"China card" King Gyanendra could play is an
indicator of the perception that currently exists
in India. After all, India realizes that China,
Nepal's other important neighbor, is also a
veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council.
That King Gyanendra, who carried out the
first phase of his takeover bid in October 2002,
was steadfastly taking Nepal out of the Indian
orbit was perceived in India weeks before the
February 1 step was announced.
"India's
policy failure in Nepal" was the headline of an
analysis printed in The Telegraph newspaper on
January 3. Bharat Bhushan, the analyst, raised the
issue as to how "weapons are flowing into Nepal
from a variety of non-Indian sources - the United
States of America, Belgium and South Africa, among
others". The aircraft carrying weapons, he wrote,
were routed through China to avoid Indian
scrutiny.
But Nepal's security analysts do
not see any harm in accepting Chinese support, so
long as it is for defending Nepal, not offending
its other neighbor. And what is wrong with King
Gyanendra playing with the idea that if Nepal's
relations with the international community were
enhanced, "India's weight in Nepalese affairs can
be reduced?" Those who have been supportive of the
king from the beginning take such a stand as a
part of patriotic strategy that should have been
adopted a long time ago.
They argue that
it is high time for India to get rid of its
meddlesome politicians and diplomats. In the
meantime, Nepal cannot undervalue its relationship
with its northern neighbor. "China is a great
power and has its vital interest in Nepal. And it
would be unrealistic to assume that they have no
alternative strategy in case the present policy
fails," Professor Yadunath Khanal wrote in a book
published in 2000. Khanal, who passed away last
October, had the unique distinction of being the
only Nepali diplomat to serve as ambassador to
India, the United States and China.
New
Delhi seems to be overwhelmed by a joint
US-British proposition that India should play the
leading role in all initiatives regarding Nepal.
But there is nothing unusual or extraordinary
about this proposal, because it is basically the
physical proximity factor that Washington and
London have taken into consideration. "The United
States is far away, India is right next door," was
the comment Donald Camp, a senior US official,
made at a House of Representatives subcommittee
meeting in the beginning of this month.
In
other words, what Americans, Britons and others in
the like-minded camp are repeatedly saying is
obvious. They are not saying anything that needs
to be deciphered for hidden meaning. And they are
not suggesting that India has a license to do
whatever it wants in Nepal. Needless to say, if
not for anything else, Western powers are unlikely
to renounce their own interests in the area that
is closer to China, a country they can't afford to
ignore.
Otherwise, a royal coup in a poor
country located at a corner of the huge continent
called Asia would have hardly mattered to people
other than mountain climbers. "But it is Nepal's
geographical position that compels attention," one
Western newspaper commented on February 3. China
is already a global player, and its rival, India,
is an acknowledged aspirant for that status.
Lately, British and American
diplomats alike in Kathmandu have been facing criticism
for giving an impression that they are looking at
Nepal through Indian spectacles. Western
diplomats, according to their non-Western
counterparts, flatly deny reports and perceptions
that New Delhi has been given a blank check on
Nepal.
Actually, with the arrival of new
players, India's undue influence over Nepal is
being diluted. The scenario is swiftly changing,
and the ground reality does not give credence to
any assumption that Nepal is an exclusive area of
India's influence. The imaginary umbilical cord
does not exist. The cord is cut momentarily after
the birth of a baby; and Bangladesh is the latest
example in South Asia.
And Nepal's case is
entirely different because it was not a part of
the British colony. But New Delhi often shows its
reluctance to get rid of the colonial hangover,
and this mindset is preventing India from becoming
a truly regional power in South Asia. Needless to
say, unless it establishes itself as regional
player, India cannot qualify to be a player at the
global level.
For this, it has to take
measures and earn goodwill from neighboring
countries. Only then will India be able to say
that it can indeed represent South Asia at the UN
Security Council as a permanent member. One issue
on which India's voice regarding Nepal is bound to
be louder is democracy. This voice becomes even
more forceful because all three - India, the US
and Britain - share a common position. Although
each one is frequently subject to condemnation for
being selective in its approach, collectively they
continue to attract attention worldwide because of
their faith in a system that believes in equality
for humankind and transparency in governance.
However, India, like the other two,
has not maintained consistency when it comes to
taking positions in the real world. Indians
themselves have raised question as to why India is
giving protection to an autocratic monarchy in Bhutan
and an authoritarian presidency in Maldives.
People also talk about New Delhi's inconsistency
in policy regarding Pakistan and
China.
Analyst Brahma Chellaney,
for instance, ridiculed India's dual standards
on democracy in a recent commentary published in
the Hindustan Times. "Still, on balance, genuine
democracy remains India's best bet in Nepal,"
Chellaney argued. Those who care too much for
Hindutva would not share this opinion. From their
point of view, benevolent monarchy, not multiparty
democracy, is suitable for Nepal. There is then
another group of opinion-makers who support an
executive monarchy because it would be easier for
India to "handle" one person than deal with
different power centers, such as parliament,
ministers, bureaucrats and diplomats. However, the
existing Indian official position on Nepal does
not leave room for New Delhi's support for an
executive monarchy.
An official statement
issued on March 7 contained words to express
India's "disappointment at the measures taken by
His Majesty, the King of Nepal". India and
"several other friends of Nepal", the statement
claimed, were of the view that the royal measures
could "endanger the institution of monarchy
itself".
And this line of thinking appears
to have encouraged the mainstream Indian media to
run editorials and comments suggesting New Delhi
apply harsher policies. Recommending
regime-specific punitive measures, The Hindu of
March 2 concluded its editorial comment in the
following words: "New Delhi should contemplate a
travel ban on the king and his associates and
collaborators, and the freezing of their personal
bank accounts in India."
Is New Delhi
really disturbed because the people of Nepal have
lost their hard-earned democracy? Or are these
threats of possible retaliation against
Kathmandu's decision to temporarily shut down some
of the Indian TV news channels and a telephone
network that has been running as a joint venture?
Or is it a public display of anger - and arrogance
- at the palace for not promptly responding to
Ambassador S S Mukherjee's request for an audience
with the king? Experienced officials and media
persons tend to see these as nothing more than
knee-jerk reactions meant to serve notice that
India, if it chooses, can flex its muscles at
will.
More serious observers want to draw
a conclusion that depicts New Delhi in a mood not
seen in the past. Some analysts prefer to link
this latest Indian stand to its longstanding
aspiration to be a major player in the
international arena. The ongoing bid to secure a
permanent seat at the Security Council needs to be
seen in this context. To achieve these objectives,
India genuinely needs to present itself as a
country whose commitments to democracy are beyond
doubt.
New Delhi cannot brighten its
democratic credentials as long as India is seen as
comfortable with undemocratic regimes in the
neighborhood. That is why it is plausible for
India to extend support to the demand for
restoration of democracy in Nepal. In fact, Nepal
is a test case for India.
But the broader
question at hand is: Can the democracy India is
advocating for Nepal be expected to be
qualitatively different from the one King
Gyanendra has already promised to restore to his
subjects eventually?
Dhruba
Adhikary is the vice president of the Nepal
Press Institute. He has been a Dag Hammarskjold
Fellow at the United Nations.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us for
information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette South Asian Sex News
|
|
|
