By Sadaya S.J.B. Rana
Discussing the current situation of Nepal, we have to turn back our clocks. History definitely teaches us to understand world politics and its impact on individual nation-states. Nepal is no exception to this. Revisiting history to understand the politics of the day, we do not have to go very far but start with the contemporary history that evolved after the end of the second world war in 1945.
No sooner had the world war ended, the world was immediately divided into two different blocks, one led by the “capitalist, democratic” west and the other by the “communist, socialist” USSR. There was a third front, the Non-Aligned Movement but it could not hold much substance in front of the titans as many had hoped for.
Although militarily dangerous as it was, this polarization provided opportunities to smaller countries and even more to landlocked countries like Nepal. When Nepal first applied for UN membership in 1949, the Soviet Union (USSR) voted against Nepal’s membership at the behest of India. Why India took this step, the motives are plainly understood by now. However, due to mainly the US (the other block) pressure, Nepal, along with 14 other nations, was eventually admitted as UN members in 1955. We should not forget the contribution of the US in the annals of Nepal’s foreign policy history as had not that been the case, Nepal’s very existence till date would have been in major doubt. Nepal also managed to obtain Non-permanent Security Council membership not just once but twice in 1969-70 and again in 1988-89.
These two above examples amply prove that how smaller countries were benefitted to preserve their sovereignty and dignity in a multipolar world.
However, world history took a different turn with the collapse of the Berlin Wall (1989) and eventually with the breakdown of the USSR (1991). The capitalist democratic west led by the US prevailed and political scientists like Fukuyama even declared “End of History” meaning that capitalist democracy is the ultimate political pinnacle that the human race could achieve and that there were no more reasons for any further political revolutions.
The fall of the USSR brought about a paradigm shift to world politics. The west led by the US with its military and economic might bulldozed into the world arena forcing its values of democracy and capitalism. The 43rd president of the US, George W Bush once announced “either you are with us or against us.” Any country that dared to stand up against the west was dealt a heavy blow as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan, among others. Sovereign countries and even international bodies such as the UN became victims of the west’s hegemony.
In a televised interview in 2006, General (Retd). Wesley Clarke (once the Supreme Commander of NATO), overseeing the NATO-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan mentioned that the US had already planned in 2001 to attack seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon), in the next five years by-passing or even coercing the international war body like the UN and by 2021. We can clearly see what has befallen the six countries that he mentioned with the exception of Iran which has firmly stood its ground.
Nepal succumbed to the political paradigm shift of 1991. India is branded as the worlds “largest democracy.” Unlike during the cold war, taking a 180-degree U-turn, the very US that helped Nepal for the UN membership, gave a wink to India to usher in multiparty democracy to Nepal.
The very approach by the west led by the US to see Nepal through the “Eyes” of India in this unipolar world has led Nepal to be played by India in forcing democracy and to now secular, federal, republic and the results we all Nepali are experiencing today. These matters discussed above begs for smaller and land-locked countries to advocate for a multipolar world to safeguard their national sovereignty and dignity.
Two major incidents of the last decade and a half has again rekindled the hope for the world in ushering in a multipolar world again. First, the 2008 financial crisis has greatly diminished the economic power of the west thus bringing China as the alternate go-to place for financial assistance and cooperation. Secondly, the intervention of Russia in Syria in 2015 has also tested the west in its military hegemony.
Furthermore, the constant pressure by the west has compelled both China and Russia in developing strategic partnerships. Many countries have greatly benefitted from these new alliances between Russia and China. We can debate on the ideology but the resistance axis slowly coming into fruition has already started to trickle down whereby besieged Palestinians in the Gaza Strip prove their mantle standing up to a mighty western supported Israel.
Nepal seems to be on the cusp of catching up to the changes happening around in world politics as seen by the rise of nationalist fervour catching up within the country.
The early third decade of the 21st century is creating friction between two ideologies. Rules-based international order propagated by the west and the international law-based order forwarded by China and Russia. The former advocates for the usual human rights, press freedom. The latter stands for sovereign equality of nation-states and strengthening world bodies like the UN.
Alexander Mercouris of the YouTube channel Duran so aptly addresses the differences between the two ideologies. He takes the example of a school. In a classroom there are two sets of rules, one set applies to the teacher and the other applies to the students. This is the rules-based international order whereby the west stands higher than the rest.
Outside of the classroom and within the school boundary, even the teachers have to follow much of the same rules as the students and this is the international law-based order i.e. sovereign equality to nation-states and strengthening the international institutions like the UN.
Judicious diplomacy is the extension of politics. We Nepali will have to go hand in hand with our diplomacy. Bada Maharajadhiraja Prithivi Narayan Shah in Dibya Upadesh has described our geopolitical situation. He had explained that Nepal is a yam between two boulders and also the characteristics of our northern and southern neighbours some 250 plus years ago. The situation has not been changed.
It is said that there are no permanent friends in diplomacy but only permanent national interests. Given our geographic location and permanent national interests, we also have our permanent neighbours of which we should always keep in account in regards to building our diplomatic avenues. What has changed from the past two centuries is the presence of other parties mainly the US and the Europeans in our country today.
Changing of the Indian attitude under the aegis of the west is still continuing. However, the principal characters in India have changed. The agent of change namely the Congress, Communists and the Socialists at least in Northern India where it matters most to us have currently been sidelined and nationalists and ultra-nationalists are coming to the forefront. Like the leftists, it is also wise to be wary of the ultra-nationalists who talk about “Akhanda Bharat” as their intentions are clear to see.
India has concerns and interests in Nepal. Threats emancipating from Pakistan/Muslim that might occur through Nepal and also some natural issues such as water etc. Not realizing this, India faces much tougher challenges if the west sets a foothold in Nepal.
Therefore, we should have a twofold approach to dealing with India. As the west does in the world India has thrust upon Nepal the changes through the “fifth columnists” they have created. Unlike the fifth columnists, we have to, one, impress upon the Indian government starting with the embassy here the benefits of a sovereign Hindu Adhirajya Nepal can provide to India in regards to its concerns from Nepal. Second, we have to build up a good rapport and start a dialogue at the earliest with the Indian nationalists and not the ultra-nationalists convincing them of the same.
The misconception among us is that China is a good friend. The role played by the Nepali monarchs in strengthening Nepal-China relations and Nepal’s support to China in the international arena cannot be compared with other political leaders in Nepal. Contradicting it, China became the first country to present its ambassador’s letter of credence to the acting head of state Girija Prasad Koirala by undermining a sitting King. Also, China courting the communist parties in Nepal perhaps it could be a diplomatic error as they are loyal to India and the west. However, extending the same two approaches towards China will definitely assist us in addressing Chinese concerns and thus convincing China of our views.
For Nepal, to gain its pride and dignity back, we require positive gestures from both the neighbours. Unfortunately, there seems a thaw in the relationship between the two countries. If this situation remains, will we be able to convince both these countries to make a common view regarding Nepal is a million-dollar question. Here could be the Midas touch.
It is believed that India relies on up to 70% of its armament from Russia. Hence Russia could act as a partner for us to allay all fears and concerns the two neighbours might have that could emancipate out of Nepal. Extending our diplomatic arms in such a manner could definitely assist in our march towards bringing the change we hope to achieve.
The US is still a dominant world power in order to maintain its hegemony. It is manoeuvring to encircle and weaken China through “Quad”. There is a firm belief that MCC is being pushed as the tool to encircle China.
Talking about re-aligning with Russia to bring India and China on the same platform regarding Nepal and downplaying our relationship with the west, we should take into consideration what economic impact it may cause us and how we can observe this impact. Also, what could happen with the fate of our migrant workers who are working in the middle east as many of those countries are close allies of the US. What will be the impact on the students studying in the western world! What impact could also occur regarding our troop contribution to the UN! These and few other such eventualities should also be points of discussion.
To conclude, Udyat Sen, maternal uncle of Bada Maharajadhiraja realizing his nephew’s intention to attack Nepal valley (Kathmandu) advised him that Gorkha has to first contain Lamjung before striking on Kathmandu. This thought process in diplomacy is apt even today. Bismarck once said, “politics is the art of possible,” and so is diplomacy. We have to at the earliest initiate our diplomatic approaches for the change we are trying to usher in order to economically uplift Nepal and Nepali people and moreover for the dignity of Nepal and Nepali.
The writer is the retired captain of the then Royal Nepal Army
Login to add a comment