By the late-twentieth century, the Chinese had begun to play diplomatic checkers better than anyone else in the world. In terms of what has been called longue durée (structural impacts beyond the immediacy of causes, events and effects) in French, it’s perhaps too early to assess the consequences of Chinese awakening. However, there is little doubt that the “sleeping giant” of Napoleonic caution has finally woken up and it would probably shake the world, for better or worse.
Republica
The Great Helmsman Mao Tse-tung deftly maneuvered around Soviet geo-strategic games in Asia and finally outsmarted his mentor and patron Joseph Stalin. Mao then went on to play ping-pong with Richard Nixon and made Henry Kissinger eat out of his hands. Deng Xiaoping would later make Americans lift China out of its stasis and establish his country as the workshop of the world in the twenty-first century.
Cataclysms after the collapse of Soviet Union, crumbling of Twin Towers, and the fall of financial institutions in the capitalist conclaves have forced the US and China to reconfigure their global strategies. The Sino-American power games have now entered a new phase. Recently the Chinese sheltered US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden on its soil, allowed him to fly to Moscow, and then let him disappear from the public gaze. The Chinese attained their objectives of exposing American duplicity about snooping and let the Russians handle its fallout.
Part of the explanation behind Chinese maneuvers can perhaps be found in the strategic games they play to exercise their brains. In chess, defeating the opponent is the only aim of the player. In two party games, one automatically wins when the other loses. However, in multiplayer games such as Chinese Checkers, single-minded pursuit of one’s triumph is a better tactic. Beijing seem to be doing just that in much of Africa and Asia where they can choose their collaborators from among Americans, Indians, Russians, Brazilians, South Africans and various European nation-states depending upon their influence and utility in the areas of Chinese interest.
Distant neighbors
The Chinese gauged deep-seated insecurities of Nepalis early on and have played upon it with astute detachment. Vacuous avowal of “respect for integrity, independence and sovereignty of the friendly country and non-interference in internal affairs of each other” at every opportunity seems to be sufficient to assure Nepalis that the Chinese umbrella would always be there to shelter them should the need ever arise. In return, Nepalis never tire of swearing their allegiance to “One China” policy.
All that Beijing had to do up to 1970s was send some cigarette lighters, umbrellas, pens, fake Swiss knifes, kung fu shoes and flints to Kathmandu in order to finance road building projects and kings and courtiers of Narayanhiti would do everything to please their benefactors. Starved of dainty trinkets, Indian consumers would lap up such knickknacks in huge quantities. Perhaps it was during an official negotiation of trade treaty in 1970s that an Indian interlocutor raised the issue of thousands of Chinese umbrellas that Nepal had imported within a short period. Everyone knew that such goods somehow found their way into the great underground Indian bazaar.
By the time King Mahendra realized limitations of Chinese friendship, it was already too late. He had not expected communism to travel by taxi through the Arniko Highway into his kingdom. In fact, it did exactly that in metaphorical terms. Addicted to contraband Indo-Chinese trade, businesses of Kathmandu valley became bastions of Chinese influence.
Dénouement for King Birendra came in 1989-90 when he had to face economic blockade after buying a few anti-aircraft guns that the Chinese had lured him into acquiring. Chairman Gyanendra too played according to the Beijing game plan at regional and international forums but learnt to his disgrace soon afterwards that the Chinese were indeed fair-weather friends just as most other powerful countries of the world always are. After all, it has been repeated several times that there are no permanent friends and enemies in international relations and all that every country has to be concerned about is the permanency of its self-interests.
The wordplay of “equi-proximity” in place of “equi-distance” neither pleased Beijing nor fooled New Delhi and the foreign policy of Maoist government was a non-starter. The Chinese capital is over 3,000 kilometers away as the crow flies whereas New Delhi is a mere 800-kilometer hop from Kathmandu. It took Pushpa Kamal Dahal several visits to the capitals of neighboring countries to understand that the Chinese and Indians were engaged in the dichotomous relationship of friend-enemy and were collaborating over more issues than they were quarrelling about. Meanwhile, Chinese have perhaps recognized that in countries as impoverished as Nepal, checkbook diplomacy has its uses.
At the end of State Councilor Yang Jiechi’s visit to Kathmandu, communiqué of the Chinese foreign ministry stressed that it would promote “China-Nepal comprehensive cooperative partnership with time-honored friendship for continued development, long-term development and development to a new level”. No wonder, the bourgeoisie in Kathmandu has begun to salivate: The magic term of “development” has been used three times in a single sentence without even a perfunctory mention of democracy, federalism or inclusive politics. The prospect of Chinese bounty appears alluring. However, the fallout of developmental diplomacy of China for the permanently strained Indo-Nepal relationship remains to be watched carefully.
Estranged siblings
China can afford to be like a rich cousin who brings lavish gifts when visiting a much poorer relative. On the other hand, India is like a big sister that quibbles over small issues but is always there in times of sorrow, joy or despair. Nobody in Kathmandu or New Delhi can do anything about this reality. The neighbors know each other too well to take one another at face value. However, a course correction in the style of Indian diplomacy is perhaps long overdue.
During interactions with Nepalis, Anglo-Americans often talk incessantly and expose their ignorance of ground realities. Europeans and Japanese pretend to listen but insist on having their way. Indians have no patience for hearing, little time for expositions and are too egoistic to even pretend sincerity. Consequently, they begin to hector the moment conversation starts: Nepalis should do this, should not do that or refrain from harming themselves and others. The Chinese patiently listen, learn, and then improvise their strategy and technique. The faux humility of a far bigger country invariably has the desired effect: Nepali officials come out of conversations with their Chinese counterpart elated.
The Chinese umbrellas available in Kathmandu may ultimately prove to be flimsy, but Nepalis will keep depending upon them simply because there is hardly any other alternative on the horizon. The Indian foreign minister, when he comes visiting sometime soon, would do well to remember that antagonism between siblings is natural; it is the responsibility of the more mature person to convince the other of its good intentions.
Related story
Service in Chinese for Chinese tourists at TIA
