The Berlin Wall collapsed on November 9, 1989 ending the Cold War, eventually fragmenting the Soviet Union founded on communist ideology. This left the oldest democracy, the United States, as the sole global power. There was an opportunity to build a new order. But no such order or foreign policy framework could emerge out of the collapse. [break]
The period came to be characterized by scholars as the ‘End of History’ (Fukuyama), ‘Clash of Civilizations’ (Huntington), ‘Coming Anarchy’ (Kaplan), ‘Borderless World’ (Ohmae), and ‘Unipolar Moment’ (Krauthammer). This period ended with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center’s twin towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Then, everything changed. International landscape became more fractured and difficult to comprehend. Subsequently, there was an unprecedented American global engagement through its ‘War on Terror’. After 12 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost US $1.5 trillion in direct costs and hundreds of thousands of lost lives, the US has now turned its attention and resources to the strategically significant Asia-Pacific.
The region, described as “the world’s brightest spot for the 21st century,” has also emerged as the “geopolitical center of gravity.” President Bill Clinton praised Asian countries for going from “dominoes to dynamos.” Economic and geostrategic realities changed in Asia. China emerged as the second largest economy in the world, with India close behind. There is increasing assertiveness of foreign and security policy derived from their economic strengths, making the region most important for 21st century.
In November 2011, President Barack Obama, unveiled his strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific while addressing the Australian Parliament: “The United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future, by upholding core principles and in close partnership with our allies and friends.” Known as ‘pivoting’ to Asia, or a rebalancing strategy, this was in response to the growing economic weight and strategic significance of the region. Understood as a military strategy at first, economic and diplomatic flesh is being added to it.
The strategy is not a unilateral push but comes in response to the anxieties from ‘friends in the region.’ The US move to build a coalition is reflected not only in pursuing its own interests but also those of its allies. The resurfacing of conflicting claims of several countries in the region over the Sprately Islands, and South China Sea, the world’s most important waterway with huge deposits of oil, fish, and mineral resources, is not a mere coincidence.
The US insists that the rebalancing is not an encirclement strategy. Alluding to the ‘pivot’, Beijing in a recently released national defense paper states that it has an “arduous task to safeguard its national unification, territorial integrity and development interests.” The US strategy is viewed as “strengthening American friendships and alliances with China’s neighbors.” That makes China fear that troubles of various kinds could spill over from across the borders of 14 East Asian, South Asian, and Central Asian countries that share its borders. It also views the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) among the ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand to establish the world’s largest FTA, as yet another containment strategy.
Though the concept of pivotal states is yet to be formally outlined, political scientists view the pivotal state as strategically located ‘hot spot’ with the capacity to affect regional and international stability. Some countries in the region are more important than others and occupy the ‘heartland’ of their regions.
China wants India to cooperate in shaping an Asian politico-economic order. This was distinctly manifested during the recent visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India, when he said, ‘if China and India live in harmony and prosper together, and if our two markets converge, it will be a true blessing for Asia and the world at large.” President Obama hails Indo-US relations as the defining one of the 21st century, and wants “to build a future in which India is indispensable.” With the US pivotal approach, The Economist writes, “China is alarmed, but American allies are not commensurately assured.”
Changing context
A policy statement of the US Department of State dated August 28, 1950 states Washington’s fundamental objectives with respect to Nepal, are “maintenance in power of a non-communist government, the continued orientation of such a government toward the western democracies, and maintenance of its independence and sovereignty.” It appreciates Nepal’s generosity in providing shelter to refugees from Bhutan and Tibet and considers the country as an important channel on information on Tibet.
There is a growing intersection of interests of major powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, India, China, Japan, the European Union and international organizations—in Nepal. Tibet is of great interest to the West and a core security concern for China. China is concerned about the possible use of Nepal, marred by continued insatiability and uncertainties, as a sanctuary by hostile elements. Increased Western activities in Nepal, China fears, facilitate their proximity to the sensitive 1,414-kilometer Sino-Nepal border.
Foreign policies are primarily conducted for strategic reasons. On September 7, 2012 the US delisted the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as a “terrorist organization” from its Terrorist Exclusion List. It came at a time the Maoist leadership had decimated the ‘once in a nation’s lifetime’ Constituent Assembly without working out any alternative arrangement, and democratic opposition was in the streets protesting the government’s unconstitutional and undemocratic behavior and actions. This was when the Maoists were complimented “to have demonstrated a credible commitment to pursuing the peace and reconciliation process in Nepal.”
Protracted transition has resulted in loopholes on the country’s security, capacity, legitimacy, and credibility.
Continued messy domestic politics is further widening these gaps. Given the country’s sensitive geo-strategic location, its volatile present, violent past and uncertain future, a weak, vulnerable and democracy starved Nepal could become a powder keg. Lessons from elsewhere show that confusion, chaos and uncertainty provide fertile grounds for proxy activities, exacerbate recurrent domestic political deadlocks, generate intriguing tentacles, and cultivate trusted pawns to create dividing lines in the country to hurt the pride and prestige of independent and sovereign people.
The confluence of several unknown factors and invisible actors due to the absence of democratic institutions, weak governability and recurrent political crisis at this critical juncture is bound to create unspeakable suffering on people and result in unintended consequences for the country. This situation calls for the political parties and the government to seriously examine the implications of unfolding trends on national security and work to find an exit from prolonged political deadlock. This will help develop a vision for the 21st century geared at maintaining close and cooperative relations with neighbors and friendship with the larger international community. Democracy remains the only realistic way of reconciling the differences, addressing challenges and safeguarding national interest.
The author is a former ambassador of Nepal to
the United Nations
dineshbhattarai1@gmail.com
Related story
Jugjugg Jeeyo trailer: This Anil Kapoor, Varun Dhawan, Kiara Ad...
