Submit your Article

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent Taiwan trip has greatly strained US-China relations. Beijing has called the visit “irresponsible and irrational” and suspended all engagements with Washington on military, climate change and other crucial issues. What’s next for these two competing powers and how will their future relations affect the world order? Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talks to Zhiqun Zhu, professor of political science and international relations as well as the inaugural director of the China Institute, at Bucknell University, US.  

How did you see the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan? 

It’s totally imprudent at a time US-China relations are in a terrible shape. She shrugged off repeated warnings from China and dismissed serious concerns from the Biden administration and many well-respected scholars and former government officials. She knew the risks associated with this trip, which is why she did not include Taiwan in her published itinerary and kept everyone guessing even after she had started the Asia trip. Despite the misgivings, she proceeded with the controversial visit. It was this irresponsible behavior that led to the current tensions in East Asia.

Has there of late been any shift in America’s ‘One China’ policy?  

The core of America’s ‘One China’ policy concerns Taiwan’s status. It is based on the three PRC-US joint communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. The US acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China and only maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan. Recently, the US has added the Six Assurances—the Reagan administration’s principles on US-Taiwan relations—to its definition of ‘One China’. 

Both the Trump and Biden administrations upgraded US-Taiwan relations, such as signing the Taiwan Travel Act into law and lifting restrictions on interactions between US and Taiwan officials. The US government has also publicly admitted to the presence of a few dozen US troops in Taiwan. One doubts whether Washington still strictly follows its ‘One China’ policy or has moved to ‘One China, One Taiwan’ policy.

How do you see the growing competition between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific region? 

A rising tide lifts all boats. So a healthy competition is good. However, the US and China today are engaged in a zero-sum or even negative-sum competition in the Indo-Pacific.
China has become more assertive in foreign affairs as its power continues to grow.  It is more willing to use hard power to deal with disputes with other nations. The US, meanwhile, has formed new or strengthened existing multilateral groups to counter China, such as AUKUS, QUAD, and Five Eyes.

The US is also promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific and has launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, in which China is not included. This has raised concerns that the framework may be an anti-China group.

South Asian countries are feeling the heat of deepening US-China rivalry. What are your suggestions for smaller countries in the region?  

When the two great powers are competing ruthlessly, there is not much small countries can do. The best strategy for small countries in South Asia and elsewhere is perhaps to focus on domestic development. Do not get involved in the great power rivalry.  

And if some small countries prefer to be more vocal, perhaps they can learn from Singapore and tell the two great powers to not force them to choose sides, and resolve the differences peacefully.

What are the prospects of US-China relations? 

The US will do its utmost to maintain global supremacy and will push back any challengers. China is marching towards realizing the ‘Chinese Dream’ of restoring its historical status as a wealthy and powerful nation. China may not be interested in replacing the US as the global power, but its rise is threatening America’s dominance. Given the structural conflicts, the prospects of US-China relations are not promising. The only way out of this dilemma is to face the reality, respect each other’s legitimate rights and focus on areas of common interests. The two great powers will have to learn to co-exist peacefully while working together to tackle global challenges such as climate change.

Nepal-India relations hit an all-time low over a map row in 2019. Three years later, the two countries’ ties seem to be on the mend. Of late, India’s engagement with Nepal has been largely focused on development, economic and connectivity and it has uncharacteristically maintained a low-key approach. In this connection, Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talks to Mahendra P. Lama, an expert on India’s neighborhood policy and a member of the Indian half of the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG).

How would you evaluate the current state of Nepal-India relations? 

After a few years of stalemate, Nepal-India ties are looking up again. It had to at some point because the two countries have strong people-to-people relations. No matter what happens between Kathmandu and New Delhi at the political level, Nepali and Indian people living in border areas will continue to maintain their age-old relations. 

Do you think Nepal-India connectivity is improving?

Connectivity remains one of India’s priorities, not just with Nepal but also with all its neighbors and beyond. For instance, there is India’s India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway, which will be extended to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. So, India clearly prioritizes infrastructure. 

As Nepal is already practicing federalism, the federal units should assert themselves on connectivity. It should not be Kathmandu’s issue alone. Province 1, for example, should think about how it wants to link up with Bangladesh. The provincial government should talk with the government of India about opening a corridor. Nepal’s provincial governments should also take the initiative to find out what India thinks about the connectivity projects. 

There was an enduring perception that India interfered in Nepal’s internal politics. But India of late seems to have changed its approach. Do you agree? 

I think more than India, it is Nepal that should change. If there is strong Nepal with strong leadership, India and its leaders will not interfere in Nepal’s affairs. Just look at India’s relations with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Where is the scope of interference? I think this issue can be resolved with strong Nepali leadership, institutions and policies. Every powerful country likes to manage and control a weak country. This is not just the case between India and Nepal. It is happening with China and its neighbors as well. 

The report of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that you helped draft has not been submitted to the respective governments. Why?

I do not know why the report’s submission has been delayed. Apparently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not accepted it. And unless he does, the hands of Nepal’s prime minister are tied as well. The report offers new direction and vision for Nepal-India relations. If the governments of the two countries were to study it, they would see its benefits. It encompasses many issues on the future of Nepal-India relations. 

How do you see China’s growing influence in South Asia including in Nepal? 

China is not a new player in South Asia. It has been competing against India for regional ascendance since the 1970s. In that decade, China built many highways in Nepal as well. But development projects are nothing new. What is new, however, is China capturing the state institutions of South Asian countries. To a large extent, China is influencing the people who manage these institutions. Now people suddenly understand what is happening. Just look at Sri Lanka. The country’s parties and institutions came under Beijing’s sway and the consequences are there for everyone to see.

Laxman Datt Pant is a media scholar and advocate of free and accountable media. He is the founder and the chairperson of Media Action Nepal (MAN) that advocates for freedom of expression and safety of journalists. The Media Freedom Coalition-Consultative Network (MFC-CN) this year selected MAN as one of its members, subsequently electing Pant as one of the network’s three co-chairs. A 22-member global network of media rights organizations, MFC-CN advises and updates the Media Freedom Coalition, a cross-regional collaboration of 52 governments across the world. ApEx talks to Pant about the suppression of critical voices in Nepal and South Asia.  

How do you evaluate the state of free speech in Nepal?

Nepal’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression and free press. But the legislative reforms taking place at the province and federal levels show lawmakers and the governments have forgotten their commitment to national and international principles of human rights, freedom of speech and the independent media. Attempts at instituting government-controlled media-related bodies, such as Media Council, Mass Communication Authority, and Media Academy, at the province level, without wider expert and civil society consultations, and tabling repressive Informational Technology Management Bill, Media Council Bill and Social Media Directives, at the federal level, with limited or no consultations, pose threats to freedom of expression and independent media.

Efforts such as the rollout of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity back in 2013 had provided a solid opportunity for Nepal to sensitize stakeholders about the intersectional approach to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. 

This could have been instrumental had the National Human Right Commission established an independent mechanism for the protection of free expression, one of the plan’s three key components. But the commission’s draft of the directive to establish the mechanism ignores Nepal's local realities of the impunity for crimes against journalists. 

Limited consultations, reluctance to institutionalize the opportunity, and internal conflict within the national rights body have imperiled Nepal’s human rights situation. The transitional justice bodies are almost dysfunctional to effectively address conflict-era cases including those against journalists.

Are South Asian countries becoming more intolerant of media freedom?

Prolonged impunity for crimes against journalists and the legislative reforms that undermine freedom of expression and internet freedom in Nepal, growing intolerance to critical journalism and internet surveillance including violent attacks on media workers in Pakistan, and lawsuits and illegal surveillance of journalists using Pegasus spyware in India are the evidence that the governments of these countries are intolerant to free and independent media. 

With the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, media there faces increased security challenges with over 40 percent of media outlets being shut in recent months. Similarly, authorities in Bangladesh continue to jail journalists by using the Digital Security Act. Maldives' proposed Evidence Bill also presents a noticeable threat to media, as its provisions compel journalists to reveal their sources.

In Sri Lanka, incidents of harassment and intimidation of journalists and restricted access to social media have increased with the recent political and economic turmoil. And in Bhutan, online campaigns against investigative journalism including racist attacks have undermined the principles of free press.

All these incidents are not good signs for the region’s media. 

Shouldn’t there be limits to freedom of speech and expression?

The international human rights law allows some limits on freedom of expression, which in many contexts in Nepal and South Asia have been misinterpreted by authorities to suppress critical voices and the media’s watchdog role. Authorities often overlook the fact that the criteria set out in the Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits restrictions on free speech only if it goes through a ‘three-part test’ of legitimacy, legality and proportionality. 

Section 3 of Article 19 states that restrictions shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals. It is high time governments in South Asia understood and respected these tests.  

It is also essential that governments do not conduct these tests. There should be independent courts for this.

How do you ensure the safety of journalists in the digital age?

Journalists in South Asia face high levels of digital risks, as governments across the region have taken the pandemic as a pretext to suppress both online and offline media. Stealing of data by authorities, introducing so-called anti-disinformation laws to curb free press, cyber bullying, trolling, and character assassination, particularly of critical media and women journalists, are some of the digital challenges the region faces today.

As online threats and harassment against journalists through digital surveillance keep growing, the editorial self-censorship continues, impacting people’s right to information and journalists' duty to report the wrongdoings of the power centers. Journalists of today must increase their digital literacy, assess the substantial safety threats, including on social media with high-level privacy settings, to stay safe. 

What do you suggest South Asian governments do to improve the situation of freedom of expression?

With many of the perpetrators of violence against media and journalists going unpunished, South Asia today faces a huge problem of impunity, which has undermined the national and international laws concerning freedom of expression. The state of impunity has diminished public trust in security and justice systems, further ruining the editorial freedom of the media and increasing self-censorship among journalists.

Governments across the region should create an enabling environment for the media to do their job by respecting the fundamental human rights including the right to freedom of expression and press freedom. They should see media freedom as a fundamental element of participatory democratic process. Prompt, independent and effective investigations should be carried in cases of crimes against journalists through independent and constitutional bodies. Perhaps instituting a regional mechanism reflecting the ongoing UN initiatives—i.e. the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity—to defend free and independent media can make substantial change.

Are Nepal-China relations thawing? Recent events suggest so. Along with back-to-back visits by senior Chinese leaders, bilateral engagements between the two countries have also increased. Only last week, the two sides agreed to revive the mechanisms related to boundary management, and there was an understanding to remove obstacles to trade in vital Nepal-China border points. In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talks to Bishnu Pukar Shrestha, Nepal’s new ambassador to Beijing. 

What will be your priorities as the Nepali envoy to China? 

Nepal and China have shared a cordial and cooperative relationship since time immemorial. I want to elevate this relationship to a new level and for that building an environment of trust is a must, which is my top priority. Nepal has some expectations from China and vice-versa. So, we have to chalk out a concrete program. The immediate priority is to ensure the return of Nepali students to China, and the process has already begun. There are also some pending issues related to trade and transit. For its socio-economic transformation, Nepal has high expectations from China. But Nepal first has to inform China about its needs and situation, and that is my job as an ambassador. My priority is also to increase the feeling of brotherhood between the citizens of the two countries. 

What is your view on pushing forward with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)?

Nepal obviously wants progress on the BRI, which it has supported since its inception in 2013. The BRI’s key thrust is to forge collaboration between countries. Nepal has to request China for more assistance under the initiative. There have been long and intensive discussions between the two sides on how to move ahead with the BRI, but there is still a lack of coherent understanding among the people and the political parties. Even though no Nepali political party is negative about the initiative, its implementation has been very slow. There is also a flawed understanding of the BRI. Some see it as purely a grant assistance, while others view it as a debt burden. Both these understandings are wrong. If China gives us grants, it is a good thing. However, the BRI is not completely about grant assistance. It is as much about mutual cooperation and contribution. 

China has been insisting on quick implementation of past agreements with Nepal. What will you do about it? 

It is my duty as an ambassador to see to it that those agreements are implemented. We signed the Transit and Transport agreement in 2016. Some of its provisions are already in the implementation phase. I will focus on honoring the remaining clauses of the agreement, as well as other agreements between Nepal and China. 

You reportedly told our parliamentary committee that you wanted to invite China as a full member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Is that true? 

Currently, China is an observer member of the SAARC. What I meant was China’s role in the regional body should be enhanced. SAARC member countries should try to take advantage of China’s massive economic development. But the media distorted the remark I made before the parliamentary committee. I did not talk about making China a SAARC member country. I rather talked about maximizing the benefits for South Asia by engaging more with China.  

Any particular plans to kick off your tenure in China?

The government has entrusted me with a huge responsibility. I will definitely add a brick or two to the edifice of bilateral relations. I will put Nepal’s interest at the center of any engagements with China. There are several issues between the two countries that need to be addressed. China is an economic powerhouse and we need to take advantage of that. After I present my credentials, I will work on preparing a list of my priorities and tackling them systematically.