Last summer, amid mounting criticism that President Bush’s decision to attend the Beijing Olympics would undermine the Dalai Lama’s lifelong quest to gain recognition for his people, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley appeared on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos and argued that the president was deeply concerned about the people of Nepal. "What he´s doing on Nepal is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, a concern for what´s happening in Nepal.”
There was one problem. China has occupied Tibet since 1950, not Nepal. Hopefully, His Holiness wasn’t watching.
Hadley is not alone. Much of the American foreign policy establishment is indifferent to Nepal. A search of Foreign Affairs’ archives yields but a single article dedicated to Nepal. No sitting US president has ever visited the country.
Nepali politics are as byzantine as Kathmandu’s chaotic and congested streets. But this tiny mountainous nation deserves high-level critical attention from the Obama administration for several compelling reasons.
It’s a Failed State, Maybe
The recent Foreign Policy Failed States Index awarded Nepal the dubious distinction of being the world’s 25th most vulnerable nation. With high rankings in such categories as “factionalized elites”, “demographic pressures,” and “uneven development,“ Nepal fares slightly better than Burundi, Sri Lanka, and Niger but has a less promising outlook than other post-conflict countries such as Tajikistan and Sierra Leone. Although the term “failed state” remains controversial, Harvard scholar Robert Rotberg’s argument that failed states “no longer serve their people” and “deliver very low quantities and qualities of political goods to their citizens” is particularly suitable to Nepal.
Nepal has been a testing ground for the State Department’s Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) and USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), pioneering new agencies with innovative approaches to human security. Additionally, Susan Rice—the current US Ambassador to the UN—has spent her career arguing that the US must pay more attention to fragile states; at the Brookings Institution last year she counseled, “We need to do so not only in order to enhance the security, the prosperity, the freedom and welfare of millions of people worldwide but indeed to enhance our own national security.” It is likely that she is making the same case to President Obama.
They Gave Peace a Chance, Sort of
Nepal has witnessed what irregular war scholar Tom Marks has called, “the only successful communist effort to seize power since the end of the Cold War” following a 10-year war that claimed 13,000 lives. But even when the Maoists were unexpectedly catapulted into power through a democratic election, they never quite got around to resetting the calendars to year zero (still, for all their rhetoric about nonviolence, they remain armed and dangerous). Although Nepal’s peace process moves at a glacial pace, it has the makings of a success story. Indeed, its ambitions are seemingly limitless, seeking to address Nepal’s systemic inequality, the rewriting of the constitution and the integration of two antagonistic armies.
The UN has had an intimate, if rocky relationship with Nepal’s political factions. It has thus far avoided the temptation to expand its limited mandate, choosing instead to emphasize the importance of local ownership. 19,000 combatants have been sitting out political squabbles in cantonments for the last several years. Without tangible progress in the immediate future, their patience might run out.
Whether the Nepali peace process succeeds or fails, it will be studied by peace building practitioners for years to come.
It Could Be Ground Zero for World War III
Crazier things have happened (who would have predicted that an assassination in the Balkans would trigger Europe’s self-destruction?). Often described as a yam between two boulders, Nepal has long been claimed by India as firmly within its sphere of influence; a claim that China could seek to challenge. After becoming prime minister, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal defied tradition by visiting China before India, sparking controversy at home and nervousness in India.
India and China have a tense, troubled relationship and opposed strategic ambitions in Asia. In May 2009, the Australian media revealed that an internal Australian army report warned of “a real potential” for war between China and India and expressed concern about both the expansion of both militaries and an “increased likelihood for dispute escalation as a result of changes to the perceived balance of power”. The superpowers’ disputed border of nearly 100,000 sq. km, the unresolved legacy of their 1962 war, and the presence of an Indian naval base within attack range of the Strait of Malacca—the lifeline of China’s energy economy—are a toxic brew.
China has sought to contain (and potentially encircle) India by investing in a series of ports in Pakistan, Burma, and Bangladesh, which has in turn prompted India to invest in a counter-campaign of infrastructure building to balance Chinese influence. The UK’s Chatham House has suggested that environmental, energy security and water resource issues could lead to a further deterioration in relations. And if that happens, Nepal will be caught right in the middle.
Because We Can Do Better, Without a Doubt
Nepal is a poor advertisement for the possibilities of economic development. Fifty years of donor courtships have fueled corruption and entrenched elites, while strengthening an exclusionary state. Eighty percent of the population is employed in an overburdened agricultural sector. Nepal has the lowest per capita income in South Asia and consistently fails to attract FDI. Although Nepal has untapped potential for hydro-electric power production, only 15 percent of the population has access to electricity. Despite international efforts, wealth has unequivocally failed to trickle into the countryside.
Nancy Powell, a widely respected career diplomat, recently stepped down as America’s Ambassador to Nepal. The White House should work closely with the Department of State to quickly appoint a capable ambassador with experience working in post-conflict environments. The new ambassador should also have established relationships with Indian political elites that will allow him or her to work behind the scenes to dissuade India from exploiting Nepal’s economic dependence.
The White House can’t afford to mistake Nepal’s small size and marginal economy for strategic insignificance, and should avoid selecting a campaign fundraiser, as has been the fate of numerous other countries in recent months. Appointing a recognized diplomat to lead the US Embassy in Kathmandu will send a clear message that the US will not abandon Nepal at this critical moment in her history.
Courtesy: Diplomatic Courier
Related story
Reading Between the Lines of Why Bharat Matters
