The continued resistance to change in Nepal’s foreign policy conduct raises some troubling questions about the mindset of our policymakers and intellectuals. Haven’t we learned anything from the bitter failure of our past foreign policy conduct? King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s famous “Yam between two boulders” quote showed great understanding of Nepal’s security dilemma, even as far back as the 18th century. He understood well that Nepal would always remain insecure vis-à-vis its powerful neighbors, and urged us to keep refining, adapting and adjusting our foreign policy in order to deal with them. However, successive governments have looked to build ties with our powerful neighbors to bolster their own hold on power rather than to maintain the difficult balancing act outlined by Shah. This trend will continue in the foreseeable future, whether Nepal is ruled by UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress, or any other political party. It will continue unless we as a nation are ready to conduct our foreign policy as per the imperatives of the 21st century world.
Many analysts in South Asia believe China and India are so interdependent on economic matters, they will not risk further hostility, like the war of 1962. This line of thinking emanates from the Liberal school of international relations. On the other hand, the Realist school of thought argues that states are primarily driven by security concerns and compete for power in order to survive in this anarchic world. Both India and China are declared nuclear weapons states and their conventional and nuclear capabilities are growing, along with their economic muscles. The deep suspicion and mutual hostility between the two countries could escalate any time in the future, threatening their continued cooperation and potentially undermining the political foundations upon which continuing trade and investment ties between the two states ultimately depend.[break]
As per the Realist school, there is strategic competition between India and China. This is primarily aimed at securing each country’s economic development, access to resources, and open sea lane in the Indian Ocean, among other things. Nepali politicians and policymakers fail to understand this delicate relationship, and argue that Nepal will benefit from increasing economic cooperation between India and China. However, they underestimate India-China strategic rivalry on South Asia and on Nepal on a range of issues. There is ongoing debate in academic and policy circles in South Asia and internationally on whether the rise of India and China will lead to cooperation or conflict. What if there is conflict between India and China in the future? Which side should Nepal take? Can we remain neutral? I am arguing that we need to prepare ourselves for both the scenarios (conflict or cooperation) and start investing on policy debates on such issues. We are ill-prepared for this sort of exercise at the moment. I know it would be difficult to initiate this debate at the government level, and hence I propose to first do it at the non-government level, through Track II diplomacy.
Foreign Policy
Moving forward, I see Nepal as having three policy options. First, it can remain a passive actor in this changing strategic environment, as it is doing now. The hope here is that increasing economic cooperation between India and China could eventually benefit us, and that their economic interdependence will prohibit India and China from going to war. Hence, we continue to adopt the same old policy while neglecting the strategic scenario. The second (and more radical) foreign policy option is to have United States as Nepal’s ‘external security guarantor’. This means a formal bilateral alliance with the US, which will bring Nepal under the security ambit of the superpower. In return, the US will get strategic foothold in Nepal and can monitor the rise of China and India closely. In return, Nepal will maneuver out of this perennial ‘insecurity dilemma’ vis-à-vis our big neighbors. The US has this kind of treaty with other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan, both of which are flourishing economically.
Third, Nepal could take a lead in conduct of its own foreign policy and adopt ‘trilateral security cooperation’ as a new foreign policy approach. Of late I have noted that most Nepali writers focus only on economic cooperation between India, China and Nepal. But we need to bear in mind that in the conduct of foreign policy, one country’s defensive move is often interpreted as an offensive approach by another country. Hence, every move by China in Nepal, for example, in terms of development of Lumbini, opening new Confucius centers, hydropower, rail linkages, and so forth will be viewed suspiciously in New Delhi. This will result in New Delhi making a counter move. This is evident now, with New Delhi publicly raising its eyebrow on ‘growing Chinese activities’ on Nepali soil.
In international relations, major powers are primarily driven by their security concerns. Both India and China have legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis Nepal. China is mostly concerned about Free Tibet movement in Nepal and its implication for China’s territorial integrity. India, on the other hand, has legitimate security concerns of its own, beside its geo-strategic concerns vis-à-vis China. India’s security concerns relate to counterfeit Indian currency, international criminal organizations operating within Nepal, vulnerable international airport in Kathmandu, and Islamist terrorism, amongst others. Weak domestic politics is setting the stage for confrontation, as Nepal continually displays insensitivity towards the legitimate security concerns of our big neighbors. Our inability to end the prolonged transition has further weakened our sovereignty and led to increasing interference by India and China, as they fear that Nepali soil might be used to harm their respective interests.
Make no mistake: The continued insensitivity of successive Nepali political regimes towards their concerns will have wider implications for Nepal’s sovereignty and independence. Hence, we would do well to focus on addressing the legitimate concerns of both India and China, before the country embarks on the quest of benefitting from their economic progress. Once we take them into confidence, this trilateral security cooperation can later be expanded to ‘Trilateral economic and security cooperation’. I firmly believe that in a fast-changing strategic climate, this is the best course of action to protect the country’s sovereign status and take it on the path of economic prosperity and sovereignty.
The author has a Masters degree in Asian studies from Australian National University
Related story
'Game of Thrones' creators to adapt Chinese sci-fi trilogy for...
