China may force us into an alliance citing common security threats
How did you see the recent US report?
The US comes up with such reports on an annual basis, and its reports are considered credible, given the huge American investment in security and intelligence. The US has been publishing various reports on Nepal for a long time. This time, they emphasized two issues. Their findings on the TIA is trustworthy and objective. But I do not completely agree with the US assessment of the activities of the Indian Mujahideen. But we cannot dismiss these findings casually.
The Indian Mujahideen was somewhat active here at one point, but the situation has improved. Our security forces have been able to curb their activities.
You say the report cannot be dismissed. How then should we deal with the threats?
Our security forces should be aware and alert about the possible presence of terrorists in Nepal. First, there are flaws in the TIA’s security arrangements. Second, we have an open border with India. The report also states that the open border has been misused for human trafficking, trans-border crime, terrorist activities, drugs and arms trafficking. During the insurgency, more than 90 percent of the total arms had been smuggled into Nepal. The government and security agencies need to accept the US report as a source of information and carve out an appropriate policy to preempt possible terrorist acts. Similarly, coordination among security forces needs to be improved.
You said the concerns over the TIA were credible. How so?
I do not completely agree with the report but there are some security lapses at the TIA. We have had a plane hijacked from our airport and there are frequent reports of smuggling of gold and drugs from the TIA.
Some claim the US brought out the report to justify bolstering its security presence in Nepal.
As a superpower that tries to impose its hegemony, the US has been active in Nepal too. Such tendencies are more prevalent in South Asia. American focus shifts constantly. In different years, it has focused on different countries such as Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. Somehow, there are always some terrorist activities taking place in South Asia so regional and international threats constantly emerge from the region. If there are regional and global security threats emanating from Nepal, global powers will obviously play here.
During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Nepal last month, Nepal and China agreed to elevate their bilateral relation to a strategic level. How do we read this agreement?
For the first time in Nepal’s diplomatic history, Nepal has signed an agreement of strategic partnership with a country, although the document says that such a partnership is only for economic purposes. There are mainly two types of partnership in bilateral relationship: comprehensive economic partnership and strategic partnership. While the former deals with social, economic and cultural issues, the later includes strategic, defense and security components. A comprehensive partnership is elevated to a strategic partnership if the countries feel the need to cooperate in strategic, defense and security areas. First, there is a diplomatic relationship between two countries. An upgrade of the diplomatic relationship results in a comprehensive economic partnership, and the elevation of a comprehensive partnership leads to a strategic partnership. If two countries collaborate further on defense-related issues, they opt for an alliance.
Does strategic partnership with China go against the principles of Nepal’s foreign policy?
Till date, Nepal is committed to non-alignment, Panchsheel and the UN charter. Until Xi’s visit, Nepal had not forged a strategic partnership with any country. A strategic partnership contradicts the norms and values of non-alignment and other fundamentals of Nepal’s foreign policy. Nepal is sandwiched between two emerging powers. We are naturally closer to India than to China in terms of geography, culture, economy, transit, communications, etc.
But the government has clarified that the strategic partnership is purely economic in nature and Nepal will soon have similar agreements with India and other countries.
Yes. Right after Xi’s visit, Prime Minister KP Oli said Nepal would sign a strategic partnership with India as well. But how many countries can you have strategic partnerships with? What does strategic partnership mean? It seems that we are talking about strategic partnership without knowing its crux.
How would you relate the IPS and our strategic partnership with China?
The US has said it would have strategic partnerships with Nepal and Sri Lanka. But Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali has repeatedly said that Nepal will not join the IPS. On the one hand, Nepal is repeatedly expressing its dissatisfaction with the IPS. On the other, we are forging a strategic partnership with China.
What are the chances of a full-blown alliance with China?
First, the strategic partnership was forged without any preparations on the Nepali side. Second, the Chinese wanted to sign an extradition treaty in Xi’s presence. Third, if you read Xi’s article published in Nepali newspapers prior to his visit, you see that he had emphasized a defense partnership. Fourth, in 2017 China came up with a document much like the IPS titled ‘China’s Policies on Asia Pacific Security Cooperation’ and it has recently come up with a white paper on the same. Both the documents mention defense cooperation with neighboring countries.
If you sign a strategic partnership, you have to be ready to discuss security and geopolitical issues. In the future, China may force us into an alliance citing common security threats. What will Nepal do if China proposes an alliance, with the argument that the two countries have common security threats? We agreed to a strategic partnership without any homework on its long-term implications. This is a major shift in Nepal’s foreign policy.
How do the US and India see our new strategic partnership with China?
After Nepal signed on to the BRI in 2017, there have been changes in the American and Indian approaches to Nepal. They have not officially commented on the Nepal-China strategic partnership. But ever since Nepal signed on to the BRI, there has been a series of visits by top US officials, who have all shown concerns over the BRI, a debt trap and Chinese investments in Nepal. There is a view in Delhi and Washington that the communist government in Nepal tilts toward China. It seems they are now preparing a counter-strategy.
The IPS aims to minimize Chinese influence in Nepal and both India and the US want to maintain their sway. Therefore, India and the US could adopt a more aggressive Nepal policy in the coming days. There are signs of an escalation in the rivalry between India, China and the US after the strategic partnership. In fact, Nepal has invited such escalation. I see the possibility of increasing strategic rivalry in Nepal. Such a tussle does not serve our national interest. In the past, we were too close to India, and now we have got too close to China.
There was no need for the ill and ailing PM to go to Baku
The strategic interest in Nepal seems to be growing by the day, be it the interest of India, China, the US, or the Europeans. But our prime minister was recently in Baku to take part in the NAM Summit. How do you see these twin developments?
On the issue of NAM, it has to account for its own relevance. First, consider the nomenclature. Non- aligned against whom? This is the big unanswered question. The moment we say non-alignment, it means non-alignment with certain powers. It was at the time of Cold War when certain countries came together under the visionary leadership of leaders like Nehru, Sukarno and Tito that the NAM was created. They thought of a group that would not align with the US or the USSR. But after the Cold War, there are no more two superpowers. So why nonalignment? Second, in the multi-polar world, countries like India and China are coming up and there is a larger space for Germany and Brazil, and Russia is resurgent. In that context, where is NAM going to be?
Third, we are hanging on to a past relic. This was also evident in India’s approach. PM Narendra Modi has already skipped two NAM summits. This year he sent a ceremonial vice-president. We also sent our vice-president to the previous NAM summit. This time, despite his ill health, PM Oli decided to attend himself. It was taxing on his health because it was a very short trip. We have not been able to sell the idea that the head of government himself has to participate. But, yes, the summit gives you a platform to interact with global leaders and to forge personal ties with other heads of government and heads of the state.
The Oli government says it adheres to NAM principles as it is still not aligned to any big power, for instance the US, China or India. Can’t non-alignment be defined that way?
Well, it can be. This year’s NAM summit took place in Azerbaijan in the Caucasus. We don’t have any embassy in the Caucasus. So it was a good opportunity to understand the Caucasia region and Central Asia. Those countries have a lot of energy and gas which could be brought to South Asia. If we aspire to expand our foreign relation we can think of new embassies in Central Asia. The countries there should also be encouraged to open embassies here. That way the summit in Baku was an opportunity to expand the horizon of Nepal’s foreign policy. But there was no interaction between Nepal and those countries.
But PM Oli saw it fit to meet the Venezuelan President, didn’t he?
This government has tried to have good relations with countries with left governments. It was evident during the PM’s visits to Vietnam and Cambodia, and in his meeting top leaders from North Korea and Venezuela.
But don’t you think it is still a good idea for comparably smaller powers like Nepal to band together under NAM to protect their interests against the big powers?
But by sending its vice-president, India has signalled that NAM is more a ceremonial body. So it has significance, it has history, but it is more ceremonial, and has more of a symbolic value. We could have done a similar thing. But the fact that our executive prime minister participated in the summit obviously gave us an opportunity to interact with global leaders. But as far as the utility of NAM is concerned, it is diminishing very fast.
Again, what about the idea of smaller countries coming together to safeguard their interests?
We no longer live in a bipolar world with two superpowers and are slowly entering a multi-polar world. As I mentioned earlier, there is resurgence of Russia, India and China. The US under Trump shows some unpredictability but right now it is nonetheless the sole superpower. I do not think NAM’s current leadership is up to handling the challenges of this multi-polar world. NAM was initiated by some visionary leaders but they are now all gone. The current NAM leaders do not have that kind of international personality. For NAM to be significant, it has to have an economic component as well. Also, if you look at multilateral institutions like United Nations, WTO, and NAM, they are facing a problem today because everybody is now talking about ‘my country first’. The United Nations is having a serious fund-crunch. There are reports that it may not be able to pay its staff. If the UN is so neglected, does NAM stand a chance?
One concept that is closely linked to NAM is Panchasheel. After his return from NAM summit, our Foreign Minister said Panchsheel principles like peaceful coexistence and sovereignty are still relevant for Nepal.
Panchasheel was actually mooted between India and China for their peaceful coexistence. I have a slightly different take on it. Indo-Nepal relations go back to the time of Ram and Sita, and much before Panchsheel was even thought of. So how can we have India-Nepal relation based on Panchsheel? Second, our constitution says that our foreign policy is based on the UN charter and Panchsheel, and so we apparently have to abide by it. But we have to look at the practical side of things as well. Our relations with both India and China date back to pre-historic times. Now, we are trying to build connectivity through railway, roads and optical fibers. There is now a direct flight between Kathmandu and Beijing. Foreign policy parameters are also changing. We should not get bogged down with old concepts like NAM.
But NAM is also a platform for Nepal to assert its sovereignty. Our prime minister for instance got prominent space in Baku.
Yes, we have to be active in these multilateral organizations but let us make sure we also have correct representations there. Our diplomats are also highly qualified, not only to project our international image but also to ensure that our economic needs are met.
Who is setting Nepal’s foreign policy priorities right now?
It is the prime minister. It is a top-heavy structure. All vital positions are occupied by Nepal Communist Party. Do NCP leaders have expertise in every field, from economics to literature, from academicians to foreign policy, virtually everything? This is where the problem lies. It looks like NCP does not need expertise from outside.
In the end, how to you evaluate the foreign policy of Oli government in its 20 months in office?
There are both plus points and minus points. The plus points are: the visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping which took place after a long hiatus, the government pushing hard for better connectivity with both the neighbors, Nepal being heard and taken seriously by foreign partners because we have become more active, and the visit by Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali to Washington.
On the minus side, the core issues remain. Nepali flights are still banned in European countries. Even though Visit Nepal Year is approaching we have not been able to solve this issue. Our foreign missions remain inactive and there is no clear ToR of some embassies. Regarding Indo-Nepal relation, why has the EPG report not been submitted to the two prime ministers? Why couldn’t we have provided for submitting the final report to the two foreign ministers instead? Some of these core issues remain unsettled.
Pride of Nepal
How are you feeling right now?
I feel overwhelmed. I think right now, the world has seen what a human being is capable of, given you are completely committed and dedicated. I am happy this will set a good example for the upcoming generation.
It’s an astonishing feat you have just achieved, climbing all 14 peaks in the world above 8,000m in just six months. The previous record for the same feat was nearly eight years. How did the idea even occur to you?
I did the Everest, Lhotse and Makalu mountains within five days back in 2017. I later realized I could have done it in three, had I not rested. A lot of people didn’t believe me at the time but the idea for this record came to me back then.
What motivates you to constantly keep pushing your limits? Is it something you learned, or were you born like that?
I have always had the desire to do the impossible. For that, I think you have to believe in yourself first. I joined the British Army and then became a commando and finally joined the Special Forces. But I couldn’t stop at that. I had to aim higher. I think everyone can achieve the goals in their lives if they mold themselves accordingly and believe in their vision.
How were you as a school kid? Were you very ambitious even at that time?
Very ambitious (laughs). I was the House Captain in my school (Small Heaven School, Chitwan) in Grade 7 and became the Head Boy of the school in Grade 9.
How did you end up in the British Army in 2003? Was it something you always wanted to do?
I had family in the British Army and that was what inspired me to join the force from an early age.
How hard was it for you to leave your budding military career for an uncertain mountaineering future?
I spent 16 years in the British Army. For 10 years I was actually fighting while for another six years I was in lower risk areas. I gave it up to focus on my dream. It was not only for me though. I wanted to open the avenue for other Nepali climbers as well. I wanted to challenge human limitations and open the scope for further imagination on what a human body can achieve. Of course a lot of dedication and commitment was necessary but I was prepared for it.
Are you already planning your next audacious venture?
My focus right now is on producing a feature film based on my adventures which is expected to release in 2021. I will always be doing some climbing in between but I am not targeting any records for now.
What message would you like to give to all those who supported your venture in cash or kind?
The project was never about me individually or a race or a community. It was about the limits a human being can push to, and for that, I got support from all over the world. Even China gave me the otherwise tricky permit that helped me complete my record. For all the support I got and towards all my well-wishers, I want to stay humble and respectful while I continue doing my work.
What are your other hobbies besides mountaineering?
It’s all extreme sports. I like diving (under water) and skydiving. Will you continue climbing mountains and setting new records, or are you also thinking of breaking records in other fields? I have not had the time to think about that. But you never know.
(Interviewed by Sunny Mahat)
Nepal’s vital infra projects in China’s hands
The big-power rivalry in Nepal is getting curiouser and curiouser. India imposed a crippling blockade on the landlocked country for its reservations over Nepal’s new constitution. Gasping for life, the country and the then KP Oli government naturally turned to China, Nepal’s only other immediate neighbor. He went there in 2016 and signed many vital agreements, most importantly the Trade and Transit Treaty and a deal to import a third of Nepal’s oil from the northern neighbor. The goal was to forestall another blockade-like situation at all cost. His policy of ‘diversifying’ away from India paid electoral dividends— and at long last led to Xi Jinping’s Nepal visit. The Indians are worried. What does the growing Chinese presence in Nepal mean? Does it pose a direct threat to Nepali democracy? Does it spell an end to its traditionally dominant role? India and China have seldom cooperated for the benefit of third countries in the region, and it would be naïve to expect them to do so now, never mind Wuhan or Malappuram.
There is also a perception in Delhi that the common ideology of the ruling parties in Nepal and China helps bring the two countries closer. “India does not seem to have any effective ideas to meet this massive Chinese cultural, ideological and political challenge,” writes SD Muni, an old Nepal hand in India for The Quint.
Ashok Mehta, a retired general of the Indian Army and another Nepal expert, believes it is more a case of Nepal being “somewhat fearful of China and doing things after receiving some signal from Beijing.” Yet most Indian analysts also seem quietly confident that Nepal is trying in vain to overcome the hard constraints of geography.
How did you view Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Nepal?
The visit had been pending since 2014. We had been hearing different reports that Xi was not happy with the preparations for his trip or that he was not visiting Nepal. Finally, he visited Nepal and conveyed a big message. In my understanding, no foreign leader has had the impact that Xi did during his two-day state visit. When Indian Prime Minister Modi went to Nepal for the first time in 2014, it was billed as landmark. Modi also won the hearts and minds of the Nepali people.
Preparations for Xi’s visit were taking place for a long time. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi went to Kathmandu a month ago. A delegation of the Chinese Communist Party had also visited Nepal. And a seminar on Xi’s political thought was recently held in Kathmadu.
Before his visit, Xi himself wrote an article that was published in private and government newspapers. He went to Nepal with a new blueprint for bilateral relations. He said China would help Nepal become ‘land-linked’ instead of ‘land-locked’. He talked about the Nepal-China Economic Corridor under the Trans Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity.
The visit was the outcome of well-thought-out preparations. Its timing was also significant. Currently, Nepal has a communist government with a big majority in the parliament. In this context, the visit by the paramount leader of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is a turning point in Nepal’s history.
What did you think of the agreements signed during Xi’s visit?
The agreements do not have much substance as there are no deliverables. The financial assistance, however, is important. There have been agreements to conduct feasibility studies of some connectivity projects, which are significant. But until and unless India gets involved in such vital connectivity projects, China will not invest its money and tech-nology. There is no economic benefit in extending the railway line up to Lumbini, because the flow of tourists only would not sustain it. The main target of the railway line is obviously India’s market. Nepal has always wanted to be a bridge between its northern and southern neighbors. When Baburam Bhattarai was the prime minister, he pushed the concept of trilateral coopera-tion. However, India’s focus is on continuing and enhancing bilateral cooperation because it thinks of itself as the dominant power in South Asia. As far as the economic corridor is concerned, it would gain signifi-cance if India joins it. India-China relationship is tense at the moment and it is poised to remain so for long. Therefore, the feasibility study of China-Nepal-India economic corridor is challenging. Billions of rupees are required for the construction of roads and railway lines.
How do you evaluate the current state of Nepal-India and Nepal China relations?
The two cannot be compared because Nepal and India share an open border, whereas the Nepal China border is a closed one. Nepal and India also enjoy close military cooperation. China, with a closed border with Nepal, cannot demand the same type of relations that India has with Nepal. There may be flaws in the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship, but the fact remains that the two countries share an open border. There is frequent movement of people, one lakh Nepalis are currently employed in the Indian security forces and two lakhs of them receive pensions. In terms of geography too, the major Chinese population hubs are much farther from Nepal than are Indian population hubs. With some caution I would say that Nepal fears China. Nepal frequently says Taiwan is part of China, it keeps reaffirming the one-China policy, it strictly curbs anti-China activities, it closes the office of the Dalai Lama, and bars the celebration of his birth-day. All these indicate that Nepal is somewhat fearful of China and does things after receiving some signal from Beijing. Now that Nepal has a communist majority government, there is more pressure than in the past. But China is giving more devel-opment assistance to Nepal as well.
How can India minimize China’s influence on Nepal?
India should focus on completing its development projects in Nepal on time. All its works, be it the Rax-aul- Kathmandu railway line or any other development project, should be of high quality. However, major development projects are already in China’s hands. Nepal is handing over projects to build airports, roads and hydropower plants to China. China-Nepal eco-nomic corridor is under construc-tion. The letter of exchange men-tions investment in infrastructure and hydropower projects. In the past, there was no such focus. Now China is constructing transmission lines in Nepal.
Are you suggesting that Nepal is already in China’s fold?
We cannot say that. My analysis is based on the current political situation in Nepal. What type of political equation emerges in the future cannot be predicted.
(Our India correspondent Asha Thapaliya talked to Mehta in Delhi)
