 |
|
| Kathmandu, Wednesday October 09, 2002 Ashwin 23, 2059. |
|
Don’t ignore China’s
security concern
By M R JOSSE
The title of late Indian editor Girilal Jain’s
1959 work is familiar to most members of Nepal’s educated elite: "India meets
China in Nepal." This observer was reminded of that after reading Chinese Ambassador
Wu Congyong’s interview (October 1, 2002) to this daily, particularly his sharp
comments on some aspects of Nepal’s China policy, and related questions.
India meets China in Nepal
Indeed, that made me scrutinise Wu’s
comments on two past occasions: in May, in a message while celebrating the opening of a
Chinese Embassy web site; the other, in August, during a speech in Kathmandu.
Against the backdrop of the Maoist insurrection,
China’s attitude towards that movement and the ambassador’s frank and disturbing
observations regarding Dalai Lama’s activities, including that of his office here,
Beijing is clearly cautioning Kathmandu about her serious security concerns, notably in
Tibet. But, has anyone noticed in the midst of the political mayhem and turmoil of the
recent past?
Answering a question on Chinese security
sensitivities, Ambassador Wu stated flatly: "It’s obvious to everybody that the
Dalai Lama is involved in anti-China and separatist activities. There is a Dalai Lama’s
office in Kathmandu and his representative is involved in anti-China activities…This
is an attempt to sabotage national unification of different ethnic groups in China. The
Dalai Lama office was closed in 1975 but anti-China activities never stopped here."
Elaborating, he made other significant
observations, thus: "Nepal and China share about 1400 km common border. Anti-Chinese
activities here are not only a matter of concern for China but they are equally
detrimental to Nepal’s stability as well…There is no group indulging in
anti-Nepal activities in China, nor (do) the Maoists have any link there."
In his speech, Wu pronounced: "Developing
Sino-Nepal relations is in the fundamental interest of both peoples, and complies with the
basic national interests, not only conducive to the peace, stability and development of
our states, but also help to cultivate peace and stability in the region and the world as
well."
Though on the surface his comments may not seem
to set the Bagmati on fire, notably they underline China’s continuing strategic
interest in Nepal and firmly tie the value of Sino-Nepal relations not merely to peace and
stability in the region but "the world as well."
It should be underlined that China’s
reiteration of her strategic interest in Nepal comes when a body of policy shapers in
India, and elsewhere, has been loudly suggesting that China has washed her political hands
off Nepal!
Furthermore, the nexus drawn between Nepal-China
relations and peace and stability in the world is entirely logical when viewed through the
prism of a pet Chinese obsession: that there is an international plot to isolate and
contain China with moves to separate Tibet (and Taiwan and Xinjiang) from the motherland.
(Too fanciful? Let us not forget that for years
after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China was a prime
target for containment, particularly by the West. Later, after the Ussuri river clashes
between the erstwhile USSR and China in 1969 and skirmishes between them in the
Xinjiang/Kazakhstan frontier region, the USSR followed suit going to the extent of even
considering a pre-emptive attack on China’s nuclear testing site at Lop Nor in
Xinjiang.)
Can Nepal maintain her sovereignty?
Now, let us take some comments made in Wu’s
message in the Embassy web site. Among those I found particularly telling was this:
"We sincerely hope Nepal can achieve economic prosperity as well as provide contented
life for all Nepalese citizens, provided Nepal can maintain its sovereignty, stability and
peace." Especially meaningful is the qualifier "provided Nepal can maintain its
sovereignty, stability and peace."
This, in the diplomatic vernacular, suggests
that China doubts if Nepal can truly maintain its "sovereignty, stability and
peace". Why? Possibly, because of the ambiguity surrounding the rationale, sources of
support and military successes of the on-going guerrilla movement, and the widely held
perception that the Maoist leadership is being sheltered in India, despite loud official
denials.
Other comments pregnant with import concern our
Maoists whom Wu labels as an "anti-government outfit." More importantly,
however, in Wu’s message there is not merely China’s strong denunciation of the
"misuse" of the name of the late Chairman Mao Zedong but his observation that
such misuse "can serve as an excuse for the international anti-China forces to create
trouble."
For anyone who, like this observer, has had to
repeatedly explain – here, as well as abroad — that Nepal’s Maoists have
nothing to do with China can well understand what the Chinese ambassador means. In any
event, this, too, fits in with China’s evidently growing perception that, once again,
she may be a target of containment by an international combination of forces.
Extrapolating Wu’s message, China, it thus
appears, believes she could experience such a security threat, among other places, from a
Nepal unable to maintain its "sovereignty and stability" at some point in the
future.
Be sincere
Finally, there is also this bit of well-meant
advice from Wu: "We advocate that Nepal should tackle its own problems by
itself." It hardly requires the brains of an Einstein to conclude from that, that in
Beijing’s view, there is a distinct possibility that Nepal may be tempted to tackle
her problems – including, presumably, that of smashing the Maoist insurgency, once
and for all, with foreign military assistance.
Since it is quite evident that such help might
be sought from India – the safe haven, after all, of the Dalai Lama since 1959 and,
not to forget, that of Karmapa Lama as well, who not too long ago fled Lhasa and traveled
to India via Nepal – Wu’s blunt comments on the alleged anti-China activities of
the Dalai Lama’s office here in Kathmandu acquire sombre significance.
Attention may be drawn to media reports several
months ago that Indian Gorkhas were being readied on the Nepal-India border for possible
action. So also to Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha’s "assurance" at
a press conference here in August that India was prepared to help Nepal in all ways,
except by providing troops. It seemed almost as if he were reassuring Beijing that India
would not militarily intervene!
However, given the enigmas and mysteries of the
Maoist movement, the fluidity of Nepali politics – specially post-October 4, 2002
— and the propensity of the Tibetan lobby to prosper, particularly when politicians
are in search of electoral funds, one can only hope that our northern neighbour, which
studiously refrains from meddling in our domestic affairs, is not provoked.
As India discovered in 1962, such an exercise is
simply not a good idea. Nepal must take into account China’s legitimate security
concerns, rather than attempting to play ducks and drakes with her as suggested by Wu.
Such a policy, quite plainly, cannot be in our national
interest.
One hopes that the in-coming government will
take due note of the grave implications of Wu’s comments and do the needful. At such
an anxious and uncertain time as Nepal is going through now, it would be suicidal for
Nepal to transform a reliable and powerful friend into a suspicious, hostile neighbour.
Reciprocate China’s sincerity with sincerity!
Other Stories
|
