SAARC-China partnership
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai has recently made some important remarks
that will have a far-reaching impact on Nepal's foreign policy. In public
speeches in two separate programs last week, Prime Minister Bhattarai sought
China's entry into South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
as a full-fledged member. In his first ever policy statement announced in
parliament, Premier Bhattarai opined that China's entry into the SAARC was
necessary to bolster meaningful cooperation in South Asia. He also expressed
similar views in the conference of China-South Asia Friendship Organizations
Forum.
These remarks are the policy and commitment of the new government which was
formed under Bhattarai's leadership three weeks ago. Bhattarai's remarks
provide the impression that the new government would bring about some
rupture not only in the domestic politics but also in the foreign policy
priorities of the Himalayan Republic.
His remarks are more meaningful in the present context. Like most
politicians in Nepal, Dr Bhattarai had been viewed by many as a leader
having close affinity with India and accordingly having soft attitude and
stance towards India compared to other countries. Born in Nepal and educated
and politically trained in India, Dr Bhattarai has his own logics on Nepal's
relations with India because of which he is being criticized even within his
party. In the dissenting political document presented to the sixth expanded
meeting ( plenum) held in Palungtar of Gorkha district last year, Bhattarai
had serious differences with party chairman Prachanda and another vice
president Mohan Vaidya 'Kiran' on issue pertaining to principal
contradiction. Prachanda and Vaidya had pointed out India as the principal
contradiction of the party and Nepali revolution. They advocated the need
for launching a national liberation movement to free Nepal from the
semi-feudal and semi-colonized state. Bhattarai had strongly opposed this
and advocated that principal contradiction of Nepali revolution is with the
domestic reactionaries and party's struggle also should be targeted to them.
Bhattarai has his own reasons and arguments to substantiate his views. But
discrepancies can be seen in his views expressed in the document presented
in the Palungtar plenum and the views expressed in media in the form of
articles and interviews. Bhattarai, in his articles and interviews, has
opined that Nepal is in semi-colonized state. According to him, Nepal was
reduced to semi-colonial state after the Anglo-Nepal war in 1814-16. The
Sugauli Treaty that was imposed by the British colonial power had limited
Nepal's sovereignty. Although Nepal was not directly ruled by British
imperial power, it was controlled indirectly through some highly
objectionable provisions of the Sugauli Treaty. Although India was freed
from British rule in 1947, it was not decolonized in practical sense. Out of
British India, two young countries were born-India and Pakistan. But India
claimed to be the inheritor of the British raj which gave continuity to the
old colonial rule. The position and policies of India especially in its
neighborhood remains unchanged even when it was liberated from British
colonial power.
In this sense, Nepal's status has remained unchanged and Dr Bhattarai is
right in his analysis of Nepal's status. However, Dr Bhattarai's views in
his document presented in the Palungtar conclave of the party were in sharp
contrast to what he has been advocating. In the party document, Dr Bhattarai
deferred not only with the views of party chairman Prachanda and senior vice
chairman Mohan Vaidya but also contradicted his earlier voice especially in
designating the principal contradiction or enemy.
If Nepal is in semi-colonial status as Dr Bhattarai claims, the first
priority of Nepali revolution and Nepali people should be to launch a
national liberation movement. The Sugauli Treaty rendered Nepal into
semi-colonial status for which British were to be blamed. After independence
of India from the British colonial rule, situation should have been
reversed. However, India pursued the same old colonial legacy, which
continues even today. India's neighborhood policy is guided by its colonial
legacy-control weak neighbors by trick and coercion. After independence,
India imposed a new version of Sugauli Treaty in 1950 on Nepal. Some of the
provisions of the new treaty are worse than the earlier accord. The 1950
treaty, which Nepalese dub as an unequal deal, is the basis of bilateral
relations between Nepal and India.
In the present context, India and its Nepal's policy are responsible for
Nepal's underdeveloped and poor condition, which can be duly described as
semi-colonized status. In such a situation, our national priority should be
to protect independence from Indian domination and hegemony. When the
country is in semi-colonized state, the principal contradiction can never be
domestic reactionary. In such a situation, national liberation movement must
be fought against external domination in collaboration with nationalist and
patriotic forces even if they are reactionaries and rightist. In Nepal's
case, all patriotic forces, irrespective of their political ideology and
leaning, must be together in order to fight Indian hegemony and domination
to protect Nepal's national independence and sovereignty.
However, Dr Bhattarai's remarks on SAARC-China relations are definitely
praiseworthy. He has advocated China's full-fledged entry into the SAARC.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a group of
eight countries of South Asia-Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Maldives and Afghanistan. Despite having eight members, the
association has revolved around India because of its physical and economic
size, military strength and other clout. India has pitched this South Asian
group as a forum to gang up against New Delhi. It may be true to certain
extent but New Delhi's allegation is not fully true. Some countries may try
to use the forum to serve its own interest which may harm other member's
sentiment and interest. This is common in all regional and international
forums but member states need to be extra cautious not to allow the
organization to be used and misused by a particular country or countries.
Realizing, perhaps, this fact, SAARC Charter has clearly stated that
bilateral matters are not to be taken up in the SAARC and also the
decision-making process would be on the basis of consensus. There are both
pros and cons of these provisions. Its positive side is that all countries
would take the ownership on the decision if decisions are made on the basis
of consensus. The provision of avoiding contentious issue aims at preventing
any kind of deadlock in the organization. The contentious bilateral issues
often stall the entire process. It has negative side too. In the name of
avoiding contentious issues, some of the most pressing problems facing the
people of this region have not been resolved. In the absence of resolution
of such burning problems, any kind of meaningful cooperation and development
in the region may not be possible. That has exactly been the case with the
SAARC.
South Asia is the region of largest number of poor people. Despite it having
tremendous potentials for development, this region has lagged far behind in
terms of development. The region has not been able to prosper because of
the crisis of trust and lack of cooperation among the countries of South
Asia. The sole objective of SAARC was to bolster regional cooperation and
transform the region into a prosperous and powerful one. However, the SAARC
has not been able to move as had been expected. The lack of trust among the
countries has obstructed cooperation in the SAARC region. In the absence of
meaningful cooperation, the validity of the SAARC may come to an end.
There are number of reasons for the lackluster performance of the SAARC. One
is the deficit of trust among the member states. Most of the SAARC members
have problem with India because of New Delhi's hegemonic neighborhood
policy. the other one is the lack of resources to share. SAARC needs
resources to attack South Asia's common enemy-absolute poverty. The only
country that has resources is India but New Delhi is preoccupied with its
own problems. Thus, this region requires outside support and fund for its
development. With the objective of bringing more fund, some countries were
inducted into this regional group as observers which include China, United
States of America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran, Mauritius, Myanmar
and the European Union. However, observer status to China does not appear to
be appropriate. China is a country that has land or maritime border with all
South Asian countries. By dint of this, China is very much part of South
Asia. China, thus, should be invited to the SAARC as a full-fledged member.
China's entry into the SAARC is in the benefit of the entire South Asian
region. Now China is world's economic superpower. It has huge amount to
invest whereas South Asia is in need of big investment. China has invested
in all continents including Africa and South America. If given entry into
the SAARC, Beijing would be willing to contribute to the development of its
own backyard. Moreover, China has friendly and cooperative relations with
all its members except one or two. Thus, China may be more than happy to be
part of the organization in its own neighborhood. Against this background,
Prime Minister Dr Bhattarai's opinion carries special significance. It would
bode well if Nepal becomes the first country to formally propose for the
entry of China into the SAARC as a full member. Prime Minister Bhattarai is,
therefore, expected to take the lead in this process for the common good of
the entire South Asia and Chain as well.
Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai has recently made some important remarks
that will have a far-reaching impact on Nepal's foreign policy. In public
speeches in two separate programs last week, Prime Minister Bhattarai sought
China's entry into South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
as a full-fledged member. In his first ever policy statement announced in
parliament, Premier Bhattarai opined that China's entry into the SAARC was
necessary to bolster meaningful cooperation in South Asia. He also expressed
similar views in the conference of China-South Asia Friendship Organizations
Forum.
These remarks are the policy and commitment of the new government which was
formed under Bhattarai's leadership three weeks ago. Bhattarai's remarks
provide the impression that the new government would bring about some
rupture not only in the domestic politics but also in the foreign policy
priorities of the Himalayan Republic.
His remarks are more meaningful in the present context. Like most
politicians in Nepal, Dr Bhattarai had been viewed by many as a leader
having close affinity with India and accordingly having soft attitude and
stance towards India compared to other countries. Born in Nepal and educated
and politically trained in India, Dr Bhattarai has his own logics on Nepal's
relations with India because of which he is being criticized even within his
party. In the dissenting political document presented to the sixth expanded
meeting ( plenum) held in Palungtar of Gorkha district last year, Bhattarai
had serious differences with party chairman Prachanda and another vice
president Mohan Vaidya 'Kiran' on issue pertaining to principal
contradiction. Prachanda and Vaidya had pointed out India as the principal
contradiction of the party and Nepali revolution. They advocated the need
for launching a national liberation movement to free Nepal from the
semi-feudal and semi-colonized state. Bhattarai had strongly opposed this
and advocated that principal contradiction of Nepali revolution is with the
domestic reactionaries and party's struggle also should be targeted to them.
Bhattarai has his own reasons and arguments to substantiate his views. But
discrepancies can be seen in his views expressed in the document presented
in the Palungtar plenum and the views expressed in media in the form of
articles and interviews. Bhattarai, in his articles and interviews, has
opined that Nepal is in semi-colonized state. According to him, Nepal was
reduced to semi-colonial state after the Anglo-Nepal war in 1814-16. The
Sugauli Treaty that was imposed by the British colonial power had limited
Nepal's sovereignty. Although Nepal was not directly ruled by British
imperial power, it was controlled indirectly through some highly
objectionable provisions of the Sugauli Treaty. Although India was freed
from British rule in 1947, it was not decolonized in practical sense. Out of
British India, two young countries were born-India and Pakistan. But India
claimed to be the inheritor of the British raj which gave continuity to the
old colonial rule. The position and policies of India especially in its
neighborhood remains unchanged even when it was liberated from British
colonial power.
In this sense, Nepal's status has remained unchanged and Dr Bhattarai is
right in his analysis of Nepal's status. However, Dr Bhattarai's views in
his document presented in the Palungtar conclave of the party were in sharp
contrast to what he has been advocating. In the party document, Dr Bhattarai
deferred not only with the views of party chairman Prachanda and senior vice
chairman Mohan Vaidya but also contradicted his earlier voice especially in
designating the principal contradiction or enemy.
If Nepal is in semi-colonial status as Dr Bhattarai claims, the first
priority of Nepali revolution and Nepali people should be to launch a
national liberation movement. The Sugauli Treaty rendered Nepal into
semi-colonial status for which British were to be blamed. After independence
of India from the British colonial rule, situation should have been
reversed. However, India pursued the same old colonial legacy, which
continues even today. India's neighborhood policy is guided by its colonial
legacy-control weak neighbors by trick and coercion. After independence,
India imposed a new version of Sugauli Treaty in 1950 on Nepal. Some of the
provisions of the new treaty are worse than the earlier accord. The 1950
treaty, which Nepalese dub as an unequal deal, is the basis of bilateral
relations between Nepal and India.
In the present context, India and its Nepal's policy are responsible for
Nepal's underdeveloped and poor condition, which can be duly described as
semi-colonized status. In such a situation, our national priority should be
to protect independence from Indian domination and hegemony. When the
country is in semi-colonized state, the principal contradiction can never be
domestic reactionary. In such a situation, national liberation movement must
be fought against external domination in collaboration with nationalist and
patriotic forces even if they are reactionaries and rightist. In Nepal's
case, all patriotic forces, irrespective of their political ideology and
leaning, must be together in order to fight Indian hegemony and domination
to protect Nepal's national independence and sovereignty.
However, Dr Bhattarai's remarks on SAARC-China relations are definitely
praiseworthy. He has advocated China's full-fledged entry into the SAARC.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a group of
eight countries of South Asia-Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Maldives and Afghanistan. Despite having eight members, the
association has revolved around India because of its physical and economic
size, military strength and other clout. India has pitched this South Asian
group as a forum to gang up against New Delhi. It may be true to certain
extent but New Delhi's allegation is not fully true. Some countries may try
to use the forum to serve its own interest which may harm other member's
sentiment and interest. This is common in all regional and international
forums but member states need to be extra cautious not to allow the
organization to be used and misused by a particular country or countries.
Realizing, perhaps, this fact, SAARC Charter has clearly stated that
bilateral matters are not to be taken up in the SAARC and also the
decision-making process would be on the basis of consensus. There are both
pros and cons of these provisions. Its positive side is that all countries
would take the ownership on the decision if decisions are made on the basis
of consensus. The provision of avoiding contentious issue aims at preventing
any kind of deadlock in the organization. The contentious bilateral issues
often stall the entire process. It has negative side too. In the name of
avoiding contentious issues, some of the most pressing problems facing the
people of this region have not been resolved. In the absence of resolution
of such burning problems, any kind of meaningful cooperation and development
in the region may not be possible. That has exactly been the case with the
SAARC.
South Asia is the region of largest number of poor people. Despite it having
tremendous potentials for development, this region has lagged far behind in
terms of development. The region has not been able to prosper because of
the crisis of trust and lack of cooperation among the countries of South
Asia. The sole objective of SAARC was to bolster regional cooperation and
transform the region into a prosperous and powerful one. However, the SAARC
has not been able to move as had been expected. The lack of trust among the
countries has obstructed cooperation in the SAARC region. In the absence of
meaningful cooperation, the validity of the SAARC may come to an end.
There are number of reasons for the lackluster performance of the SAARC. One
is the deficit of trust among the member states. Most of the SAARC members
have problem with India because of New Delhi's hegemonic neighborhood
policy. the other one is the lack of resources to share. SAARC needs
resources to attack South Asia's common enemy-absolute poverty. The only
country that has resources is India but New Delhi is preoccupied with its
own problems. Thus, this region requires outside support and fund for its
development. With the objective of bringing more fund, some countries were
inducted into this regional group as observers which include China, United
States of America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran, Mauritius, Myanmar
and the European Union. However, observer status to China does not appear to
be appropriate. China is a country that has land or maritime border with all
South Asian countries. By dint of this, China is very much part of South
Asia. China, thus, should be invited to the SAARC as a full-fledged member.
China's entry into the SAARC is in the benefit of the entire South Asian
region. Now China is world's economic superpower. It has huge amount to
invest whereas South Asia is in need of big investment. China has invested
in all continents including Africa and South America. If given entry into
the SAARC, Beijing would be willing to contribute to the development of its
own backyard. Moreover, China has friendly and cooperative relations with
all its members except one or two. Thus, China may be more than happy to be
part of the organization in its own neighborhood. Against this background,
Prime Minister Dr Bhattarai's opinion carries special significance. It would
bode well if Nepal becomes the first country to formally propose for the
entry of China into the SAARC as a full member. Prime Minister Bhattarai is,
therefore, expected to take the lead in this process for the common good of
the entire South Asia and Chain as well.
Comments
Post a Comment