Nepal-India joint statement: A diplomatic faux pas?
By Ritu Raj Subedi
Nepal-India joint statement: A diplomatic faux pas?
By Ritu Raj Subedi
China.org.cn, September 21, 2016
Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda with his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi during a meeting at Hyderabad House, New Delhi on Sept. 16, 2016.
Ahead of his recent visit to India, Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda surprised many people by announcing that he and his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, had developed a palpable chemistry. Political observers were taken aback - how could there be chemistry between an ultra-leftist and an ultra-rightist politician?
And now, with the completion of his four-day visit, the outcome of this "chemistry" is not only surprising but also shocking.
The 25-point joint agreement released following their meeting ruffled more than a few feathers. Prachanda has all of sudden found himself in the firing line at home from the opposition, independent observers and his own party owing to his alleged ham-fisted diplomacy. Some of its points, according to the main opposition, CPN-UML, amount to treason and damage the nation's non-aligned and neutral foreign policy.
For example, Point 11 reads: "The two Prime Ministers believe their two countries hold similar views on major international issues, including comprehensive reform of the UN and other international organizations, affecting developing countries, and will work closely with each other in the United Nations and other international forums. The Nepali side reiterated its support for India's candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council."
This point obviously runs counter to the geopolitical reality between the two neighbors and Nepal's independent position on the world stage. Nepal and India have different diplomatic priorities and stakes. They cannot hold a common position on many tricky regional and international issues.
Sandwiched between the two giant neighbors, Nepal has been maintaining its sovereignty and independence for centuries through a combination of clever diplomacy and patriotic war. As a founding member of the Non-Align Movement, Nepal has not only upheld its independent foreign policies as enshrined in the Panchsheel (five principles of peaceful co-existence) and the UN Charter, but has also strictly followed neutrality between India and China, not siding with either during the Sino-India war, for example. Likewise, it remained neutral when India and Pakistan fought four wars.
This controversial provision of Point 11 will force Nepal to turn towards India for advice and synchronize its foreign policy with the southern neighbor. Should Nepal seek Indian consent to form its outlook on China? This would severely affect its ability to pursue an independent policy on diplomatic relations.
Foreign policy expert Hiranya Lal Shrestha believes the controversial statement had smashed Nepal's neutral stance on regional and global matters.
"The joint statement has tilted Nepal towards India over its foreign policies and conduct," he said, adding that Prachanda's "chemistry" with Modi emerged when the former underwent a rightist turnabout in domestic and foreign policy.
Prachanda also erred by committing Nepal's support to India to secure permanent membership of the UN Security Council. This is the first time Nepal has extended such support to India at such a high level without holding broader consultations with concerned stakeholders. Observers argue that this could rile China that has been constantly blocking India from Security Council permanent membership that would give it great power in South Asia.
Immediately after returning to Kathmandu, Prachanda defended the joint statement, saying it would not offend China. However, he got a roasting from his own party leaders. They have accused him of inviting Indian interference in the internal affairs of Nepal.
The joint statement mentioned the statute-making process and amendment, and accepted the Indian embassy in Kathmandu as part of the joint monitoring team of projects run with Indian assistance.
UML chair and former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli denounced the statement and said his party was not ready to amend the new constitution at the beck and call of foreigners.
It is interesting to note that Prachanda, which means "fierce," launched his decade-old armed insurgency on an anti-Indian plank. He had been demanding that the unequal 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty and certain hydropower agreements with India be annulled. He called for a subversive war against Indian imperialism, and many of his militia lost their lives on the altar of his reckless revolution.
Ironically, he did not mention these pressing topics during his meeting with Modi. He neither asked Modi why India imposed a five-month long crushing blockade on Nepal, which was reeling from the trauma of the devastating earthquake last year. A shrewd Modi held Prachanda spellbound with flattery and nice words, and the latter failed to notice he was being led down the garden path.
Ritu Raj Subedi is an associate editor of The Rising Nepal.
.png)
