Nepal IN US South Asia Policy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Recently, Ambassador Scott H DeLisi of the United States of America made some revealing remarks on Washington’s Nepal policy. In an interview to a Nepali national daily, Ambassador DeLisi said that the United States looks at Nepal as an independent member of the South Asian region and treats accordingly. According to DeLisi, despite Nepal being surrounded by two giants—China and India, it should adopt foreign policy taking into account the fact that the world is bigger than China and India.

There are mainly two messages in Ambassador DeLisi’s note. The first message is that Washington Nepal’s policy and priority remain unchanged despite its change of priority in South Asia. Secondly, it wants Nepal to come out of the tradition of India or China centric foreign policy but conduct its international relations in a broader and global perspective.

Any comments and remarks made by ambassadors of international powers like the United States has its impact and Ambassador DeLisi’s remarks have definitely sent ripples in the diplomatic circle in Kathmandu as well as in the region. His remarks came at a time when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Nepal had been planned and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, too, is supposed to visit to Nepal in near future. Thus these remarks have special significance and meaning especially at time when big powers are making newer adjustments and alignment in the world including South Asia. As the only superpower, the United States, too, is reshaping and readjusting its foreign policy and international relations to cope with the newer challenges that have come up in the post Cold War era. Its direct has been more visible in South Asia than in other parts of the world.

As a part of readjusting its foreign policy and strategic priorities as a whole, some changes are seen in US South Asia policy. The change in US South Asia policy and priorities has made Nepal’s foreign policy interlocutors and analysts a little bit apprehensive. Nepalis are worried because the overall change in South Asia policy would also bring about change in the US Nepal policy. There is a valid ground in the anxiety of the Nepalese foreign policy pundits because Nepal is a part of South Asian region and if the US South Asia policy changes, it will definitely have impact on Nepal-US relations. However, Ambassador DeLisi’s views have come as an assurance that there would be no change in US Nepal policy. This is a matter of big solace for Nepal.

With the end of the Cold War, the international balance of power has changed. This is more visible in South Asia. The nemeses of the Cold War era have become allies whereas trusted allies of the past have turned into foes. Take example of relationship between China and Russia and between India and the United States. During the Cold War era, China and Russia had bitter relations. With the advancement of Soviet Union in East and South Asia, China perceived greater threat from Moscow than any other countries, which compelled the United States and China to cooperate on issues pertaining to international security, economic sectors and trade. The United States needed China’s cooperation to tame the rising Soviet influence and aggressiveness in the world especially in Asia. Beijing, too, felt necessity of US role in Asia to keep Soviets at bay.

Pakistan, a common friend of both the United States and China in Asia, played the intermediary role to bring China and the United States closer. It was Pakistan’s role that facilitated the historic visit of US president Richard Nixon and meeting with Mao Zedong. The role Pakistan played was highly valued by Washington and Beijing and their relations with Pakistan remained excellent throughout the Cold War. The cooperation between Washington and Beijing paid well, the benefit of which both the countries are reaping.

International situation suddenly changed soon after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and collapse of Soviet Union. The changed international situation also brought about change in the US policy in South Asia. After the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, Washington thought that its mission in South Asia was over and reduced its presence and engagement in South Asia. Until 1989 when Soviet troops were present in Afghanistan, the United States and Pakistan had excellent relations and they perfectly cooperated with one another. Washington and Islamabad were allies and had been strategic partners. Similarly, India and Soviet Union had signed strategic and military agreements and they also shared similar views on certain international issues and cooperate done another. However, it suddenly changed after the collapse of Soviet Union that also marked the end of the Cold War.

With Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, America, too, drastically reduced its engagement in South Asia which created a power vacuum in Afghanistan. Out of this power vacuum, fundamentalist Taliban dramatically emerged that ultimately captured power and imposed an Islamic theocratic regime, undercutting democratic values and human rights. The rise of Taliban also gave rise to newer kind of problems in South Asia that posed greater challenge and threat to international security. Taliban regime in Kabul not only terrorized their own people but also provided safe haven to terrorist network— Al Queda which used Afghanistan as a birthing center of terrorists and launching pad for terrorist attacks in the United States and other Western countries. This is partly making of the United States. Had the United States continued its strong presence in South Asia, the situation in Afghanistan would not have been as bad and chaotic as it is today.

Rise of Taliban in Afghanistan is, thus, attributed to the reduced US presence in the region. This is a failure of US South Asia policy, the price of which the United States and the world are paying in Afghanistan at present. The US role is as desirable today as it was in 70s and 80s decade. Now the US priority in South Asia has shifted from strategic interest to economic interest. Economic interest is to do more with the market than with the strategic value. India’s huge market and its economic potentials lured the United States and brought New Delhi and Washington closer. The economic relations brought these two countries so close that they have ultimately become strategic partner, which made Pakistan a little bit scary and started distancing itself from Washington. This US policy change has already created friction in the relations between the United States and Pakistan which are more visible in recent months.

With the United States slowly leaning towards India, analysts had even suspected that Washington may look at other South Asian countries through the prism of New Delhi. However, Ambassador DeLisi’s remarks have at least cleared this doubt as far as Nepal is concerned. As a country between Asia’s two rising powers, Nepal’s strategic value has not diminished but further grown, which Washington has clearly understood. China and India had definitely rivalry and animosity in the past. They once fought war over border dispute. But that is history now. Although the border dispute is yet to be resolved, India and Pakistan have kept the dispute aside and focused on other areas of mutual benefit and cooperation. Beijing and New Delhi are cooperating more than competing in recent years. They share similar views and values on many international forum and issues. Their volume of bilateral trade is growing fast. As a result, Nepal is being developed as an important bridge between China and India, which has boosted Nepal’s strategic value more than ever before.

So far as US Nepal policy is concerned, Washington has some principal policy objectives in Nepal, which include Nepal’s independence and territorial integrity; peace and stability, democracy, poverty alleviation and religious freedom. Survival is the principal strategy of Nepal, which is the basis of foreign policy of Nepal throughout its history, which the concern of the United States, too. The United States wants Nepal to always remain independent, sovereign, peaceful, prosperous and democratic. Nepal and Nepali people, too, see the United States as an international power that would come to its rescue if its sovereignty and territorial integrity come under threat.

The United States has its stake in the world including South Asia. It has both strategic and economic interests. There is growing feeling in South Asian in recent years that economic interest might have replaced the strategic interest in South Asia. If this is at all true, it would be a yet another big mistake on the part of the United States. The economic interest would give more focus on big countries with big market. This would give rise to threat to smaller countries in South Asia. For a world power like the United States, it would be a mistake to look at South Asia only from the perspective of economic interests. South Asia needs political stability, peace and security guarantee for which Washington’s role could be instrumental. Against this background, the Ambassador DeLisi’s remarks have assured South Asian countries including Nepal that the United States has not deviated from its earlier independent policy with individual South Asian countries including Nepal and would continue to play its meaningful role for peace, security and stability of the region.

Comments