I read with interest a recent article in
www.nepalnews.com by Mandale aka pro-monarchist journalist/commentator Jan Sharma titled ?Nepal?s China Policy?. Needless to say, this article like his previous ones is fraught with his ignorance of the core issues.
China?s foreign policy is supposedly guided by ?non-interference? in other countries? affairs. That?s a communist propaganda. Case in point, by vigorously supporting the king of Nepal, one of the protagonists in the current political crisis, China has already sided with one party in the conflict and implicitly intervened in Nepal?s internal affairs. If China truly believed in non-interference, it would have kept its silence and let events in Nepal unfold. I am not sure if Mr. Sharma fully understands why China espouses a so-called ?non-interference? foreign policy. Part of the reason is, of course historical, and that?s understandable. The 1841-45 Opium War led to a century-long colonization of China by European Powers and later by Japan. But the main reason, and important
in today?s context is that, China does not want to be lectured by other countries principally the U.S. on human rights, Tibet and political freedom.
Mr. Sharma?s recommendation that ?In the long-term, Nepal should tab on the emerging
Tokyo-Washington-Beijing triangle? is a perfect example of his total lack of understanding of today?s geopolitics. He seems to be living in a la-la land. If he continues to write these kinds of articles, the entire journalistic community of Nepal will be
discredited.
In today?s geo-political context, Tokyo and Washington are never going to be buddy-buddy with Beijing. Tensions between China and Japan have been rising in the past few years especially with the submarine incident last year and Washington-Tokyo?s recent
pledge to intervene in the Strait of Taiwan. Just yesterday Chinese mob attacked Japanese Embassy with implicit approval of the government over alleged misrepresentation of history in Japanese textbooks. Tensions between China and the U.S. have subsided considerably since the surveillance plane incident in 2001. But that?s a historical anomaly. The event of 9/11 led to a shift in the U.S. focus from China to
the Middle East. With the Middle East now settling to some kind of stability China will again emerge as the strategic focus in the U.S. That is already happening. The U.S. is upgrading its defense agreement with Japan. It is deepening its strategic relationship with India. And during recent visit to China, Dr. Rice raised all kinds of sensitive issues. Of course, U.S. ? China relationship is not one-dimensional. Those two countries are intertwined by the growing economic ties and their sometime collaborative efforts on N Korea and over other issues at the U.N. But that does not change the fact that, the U.S. foreign and security policy establishment view China as the next strategic threat to the U.S.
Despite Mr. Sharma?s ignorance of geopolitics, he does try to make a point. That being that Nepal should not be overwhelming dependent on India. Of course I share that sentiment. But the geographical reality limits Nepal?s options. I am no fan of India
but saying that Nepal can live without India?s goodwill is a hallow nationalism. The best foreign policy option for Nepal is not to have so-called ?China Policy? or ?India Policy? but to have a neutral stand, very much similar to Switzerland. That is because when you are small, poor, and weak, you don?t want to piss anyone. That?s called real politic
Since we are discussing Nepal?s foreign policy, it is interesting to note that the only countries that have openly supported King G?s moves are China, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, and Cuba. I can?t wait to hear more support from other autocratic-reactionary regimes like N. Korea, Equatorial N. Guinea, Congo, and Burma.
