By Zhou Shengping
As is said often, there is no such thing as absolute strategic autonomy. It is more pronounced in the rapidly changing dynamics of international relations in the 21st century.
Look at India — which is a powerful country in South Asia, but it has been seen using ‘Quad’ where it sits down with the U.S. and its Asian allies, Japan and Australia, as the shield and buckler to defend a rising China which is perceived as the “the biggest challenge to India”. This requires wise decisions for India’s strategic autonomy, according to C. Raja Mohan, an Indian foreign policy analyst.
Some Chinese academicians, however, strongly argue that India’s quest for autonomy by moving closer to the U.S and the U.S.-led Quad in recent years is unwise, and reflects India’s confusion on strategy due to its visible warmth towards the U.S. by worsening Sino-India relations.
Photo: Internet.
As far as Nepal’s strategic autonomy is concerned, a similar kind of confusion appears on the surface, probably derived from misunderstandings and misjudgments on the international relations front in the past three decades. Isn’t it?
In a sense, the failure of the Deuba-led new government to appoint a foreign minister even after it came to power for more than one month shows the increasing sensitivity of Nepal’s foreign policy.
In recent times, there emerges a presumption from a handful of Nepali political leaders, according to a sober social activist, that Nepal should invite and welcome the U.S. to step in and expand its business so that existing dominance enjoyed by the two immediate neighbours could be broken down. This is necessary, the leaders view because Nepal’s domestic affairs have already started to be palpably influenced by China. They consider the northern neighbour as a new manipulator with a more aggressive behaviour like the old campaigner — India.
It is an exaggeration to say those people are benighted souls since they have realized one basic truth — India, the U.S. and China have far greater standing in Nepal’s diplomacy. After all, there are more than 20 Nepali ambassadors stationed in different countries and regions, but only three ambassadors designated to the three nations enjoy the ministerial status.
Guess which among the three giants is most powerful for a landlocked Nepal? This simple question disturbs and puzzles and confounds even pundits of foreign relations both from India and China.
By inviting America to expand its influence, they are naïve, far from being clear-headed if they are not brainwashed or bought off, ignoring that the power of America lies everywhere and Nepal has already been under its vast influence. More seriously, they mistake China’s influence as power and overestimate such influence.
If China had power, Nepal Communist Party (NCP) wouldn’t split in February 2021 after the two biggest leftist parties — Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) merged to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) in May 2018, and the NCP-led government wouldn’t collapse so fast.
Again, if China had overwhelming power, during the past five years the cooperation under Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) would have become a game-changer for Nepal’s economic development with billions in loans from Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a major financial institution of BRI. More projects would have mushroomed. But the nine projects selected by the Nepali government for potential BRI funding is in chancery and haven’t borne fruits till date.
Of course, China does have tremendous influence over Nepal, but in different ways. Unlike the huge trust deficit between Nepal and India, benign intentions from the north are rarely questioned. Western media’s narrations of the so-called “debt trap” of BRI and “wolf warrior diplomacy” of China interest few Nepalis. China’s gracious assistance to curb the unending COVID-19 pandemic, just like what it did after the 2015 earthquake, go a long way with Nepali people from all walks of life.
But in diplomacy influence differs from power. Chinese stance on Maoist guerrillas in India offered an ideal example to explain the difference between influence and power. In 2015, Chinese ambassador to New Delhi Sun Yuxi said that Beijing did not even know why they called themselves followers of Chinese great leader Mao Zedong as there’s no relation between China and those rebels. For guerrillas in India’s forests, China is a giant in influence and nothing in power.
It’s a pity that policymakers and diplomats are often seen mixing these two, only to find themselves be caught in a dilemma.
In October 2020, to improve its icy relations with Nepal, India abused its power by designating Samant Kumar Goel, head of the external intelligence agency RAW, instead of a senior diplomat, as the special emissary of PM Narendra Modi to Kathmandu for a one-on-one meeting at midnight with Modi’s Nepali counterpart, KP Sharma Oli who also happened to be chairman of the NCP. That event made the Nepali people angry, and India’s influence was badly affected.
At the same time, some Marxist theoreticians politely pointed out that China misused its influence many times during the union and separation of the short-lived Nepal Community Party, confusing the mass who believe in China’s non-inference policy as well as weakening its power on Nepal’s communist movement.
Since China still considers itself weak and is unwilling or unable to augment its power in the close neighbour, what can be the logic to invite enhanced U.S. presence to Nepal? Ostensibly to balance Chinese power? Something which doesn’t exist.
As a matter of fact, the price for Nepal’s strategic oscillation between India and China has been proven too high to continue. If America’s recent withdrawal from Afghanistan is any guide, Nepal should have sensed that the U.S is bound to play a more crucial role in this Himalayan nation through the pact of MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation) and other means for its own geo-politic interests.
Is Nepal ready to deal with economically forward and politically influential three big “neighbours” at the same time? The U.S is so powerful that almost every small nation can treat it as a neighbour, just as landlocked Mongolia considers the U.S. and other important foreign plays that don’t share borders with it as a third neighbouring country. The fundamental judgment stands out that the challenge for Nepal’s strategic autonomy is unprecedented.
As an old saying goes, “Whosoever understands the times is a great man.” Nepal must use China’s unwillingness and inability to comfort India that India’s influence remains intact. To say the least, Nepal should help India understand that recognizing the power in China does not diminish Indian own, let alone China only serves India as an imaginary power at present.
Since China is comparatively weak, it is naturally the best bet for fragile Nepal, while sticking to its guns — non-alignment policy, to proceed without hesitation with its efforts to deepen cooperation with China to balance India and the U.S. for its own existence.
At the same time, the mistakes of two close neighbours due to immaturity and error in judgment are more valuable to strengthen Nepal’s confidence to safeguard its autonomy while reminding a pushy America of the dangers ahead.
The writer is the former chief of Xinhua News Agency Kathmandu Bureau.
Login to add a comment