By Shristi Amatya
The principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of other countries is one of the main guarantees of international stability. Unfortunately, in recent years we see that massive and systematic violations of this rule have led to a surge of an unprecedented tension around the world.
This principle allows every State to independently choose its own political, economic, social or cultural system without interference from other States. It’s simple, but doesn’t seem obvious to everyone. There are more and more calls to build a “rules-based order” along with an active attempts to impose one’s will on neutral countries. That is why the consequences are more terrible for those who, despite everything, stand for preserving the foundations of international stability and security. Achieving the sustainable development goals requires an equal partnership of all global players, in other words, “teamwork” is vital. This approach will ensure the creation of tools to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of life.
However, not all countries think this way. Surprisingly, but the most absurd and completely anti-democratic actions are committed by those who have declared themselves “defenders” of international law. A striking example of such peremptory and rude behavior in its rhetoric has been demonstrated during the recent speech by the Ambassador of the Netherlands to India and Nepal, Martin van den Berg. At the international conference “Globalization, Geopolitics and Developing Countries – Challenges and Way forward”, the diplomat publicly doubted the expediency of Chinese investments in the Nepali economy. He eventually drew a dubious parallel with the Sri Lankan case, trying to hint that Nepal will be affected by the same scenario if Kathmandu continues to “mindlessly” accept Beijing’s money. A highly unethical statement could be justified by a slip of the tongue or an unfortunate wording, but how to perceive his diligent silencing of a much larger scale of financial assistance from the Western countries? It is very unlikely that His Excellency is so silly or inexperienced that he does not have information about the amount of subsidies arriving to Nepal from the allies of the Netherlands such as the United States and Great Britain. And if he knows about the funding from Washington and London, then why does it not cause him concern at all? And here we go again – it is not that simple. A significant part of these funds is spent on their own advisers and goes back to the Western economies.
If the Ambassador still forgot, then we are willing to remind him that in 2022 $ 500 million was allocated to Nepal as part of an agreement with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and $650 million was donated by USAID. Let alone talking about the unprecedented amount of funding the various NGO projects by the Western countries in 2021-2022, which totaled 26.1 billion rupees (about $ 200 million). It would be great if all this money had been given to the Nepali people free of charge to improve the basic social indicators in the republic, but the reality, sadly, is the way more harsh.
They prefer to ignore this fact but the MCC agreement alone does not stand up to any criticism. While the grant is in force, the American corporation retains the formal right of control over related agreements, economic investments and public affairs of Nepal. What about Nepal’s prospects of having intellectual property rights? As you know, it will be completely owned by the MCC. This condition will contribute to the fact that Nepal will not be able to take advantage of the results achieved on the basis of its geographical, environmental and geological knowledge and research, together with any patent rights. This is truly the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of Nepal by investors in action.
There are plenty of other examples of pointless inaction of the leaders of “sovereign” Nepal. And often it concerns not only the economic development of the country. For instance let’s take a closer look on the last election. Have you ever seen that foreign diplomats, one by one and united in groups on the eve of elections, visited the leaders of the country, parties and public organizations and taught them in a brazen way how to hold “democratic elections”? I can’t recall any case when Nepali diplomats did anything like this in terms of the elections in foreign countries. In “sovereign” Nepal it is possible though. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic should send a corresponding note to the diplomatic corps in Kathmandu indicating the unacceptability of such actions by representatives of foreign states. Otherwise, very soon we will face more serious attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal.
However there is no point in paying special attention to Martin van den Berg’s statement. His speech only demonstrates his professional incompetence. The situation is much more complicated when it comes to the real threat to the sovereignty of developing countries, and this doesn’t deal with Nepal only. Imposing one’s will on other States not only violates the norms of international law, but also provokes internal political contradictions that negatively affect the economic well-being, stability and investment attractiveness of the least developed countries. Are these really the rules on which you want to base your order?
Login to add a comment