The reason the economic blockade imposed by India has brought the country to a standstill largely owes to the country's unfavorable geopolitics. It is land-locked. But it is not just land-locked; it is effectively 'India-locked', surrounded as it is on three sides by India and on one side by Tibet whose border passes are difficult to navigate. This is why Nepal is reliant on India for most of its trade (60 percent) as well as its trade with third-countries which is conducted via the Kolkata port. But over the past few weeks India has not just stopped trading with Nepal (which it is well within its rights to do); it has also ground the third-country trade via the Kolkata port to a halt (which is illegal). The UN Convention on the Right of Access of Land Locked States clearly states that: "Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea... To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport." The Indian blockade denies Nepal this inalienable right.Of course, for the Indians there is no economic blockade on Nepal. In its defense, it likes to point out that goods-bearing trucks continue to enter Nepal from Indian border points, which would not have been the case if there was a blockade. What India doesn't say to the rest of the world is that that almost all the trucks entering Nepal are laden with fruits and vegetables at various stages of rotting. To fool the international community, India also allows a few fuel tankers to enter Nepal. In the words of the Nepali drivers of petroleum tankers who transport fuel from India, Indian authorities have clear instructions "from above" not to give them more than 10 percent of the quantity of petrol, diesel and kerosene Nepal asks for. Nor does it tell the world that all the goods being imported by Nepal from third countries are being held at Kolkata port. The international community, for its part, is apparently happy to note that since some vehicles are coming into Nepal there is therefore no blockade. This means they won't have to speak against India and risk the ire of the big regional power.
It's a shame that our otherwise well meaning international friends have been cowed into silence. Even among the international actors, we find the silence of the UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) particularly galling. The office is clearly failing in its duty to speak up for Nepal's transit rights as enshrined in a UN convention. The office is surely aware of Nepal's plight: UN-OHRLLS is now headed by a Nepali, former Foreign Secretary and Nepal's UN Representative Gyan Chandra Acharya. We don't want Acharya to take Nepal's side just because he's a Nepali; after all, he heads a global body. But isn't it his duty to speak against the clear case of bullying against a land-locked LDC? Or is his office happy to limit its role to meaningless meetings around the globe? If UN-OHRLLS cannot speak up when one of its member countries is being effectively bullied into submission, perhaps the UN system would be better off without it.
Related story
EC closely observing and monitoring by-election silence period
