This article was first published in The Kathmandu Post, April 5, 2016.
The
accords signed between China and Nepal and the joint communiqué issued during
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to Beijing may provoke New Delhi and widen
the India-Nepal gap, but they are barely enough to take China-Nepal relations
to a new height. Oli’s visit to China has been lauded as an ‘historic’ event,
mostly by Nepali left-leaning thinkers, naive foreign policy analysts guided by
sheer idealism and ‘accidental’ experts on almost everything. International
relations and diplomacy can be interpreted as one wants to, but the truth is
that this visit is a combination of showing off and testing limits in regional
politics. What did not happen is more important than what did.
The
status of the proposed oil trade between Nepal and China and the reopening of
Tatopani customs remain like they were before Oli’s trip to Beijing where he
was greeted in a language he could not understand. The use of translation
devices to understand what Chinese leaders were saying shows how hard it is for
Nepal to play the ‘China card’ against India. New Delhi is paranoid not because
of what has already happened between China and Nepal, but because it is
clueless about the course the Nepal-China pact could take. New Delhi has almost
no access to what was discussed inside the Zhongnanhai former imperial garden.
Chinese President Xi Jinping cleverly mentioned that there should be
China-India-Nepal trilateral cooperation in the future in a subtle but clear
message to New Delhi that Beijing is in no mood to hobnob alone with
Kathmandu’s leadership. In other words, it is a message to the Nepali
leadership that China will not go further with Nepal on a road that does not
seem to be sustainable.
Realism versus idealism
Chinese
leaders know that what Nepali leaders say is not based on national consensus,
and that everything can turn upside down with a change in the administration.
It is important not to undermine this symbolic message. Such an implicit
message signifies that Beijing is merely being generous to Nepal and the Nepali
people. It means that Nepal cannot be China’s strategic partner to keep India
off-balance in regional politics. Hence, it is difficult for the things that
China agreed to during Oli’s visit to materialise. It is necessary to look at
where China is coming from while signing agreements with Nepal and issuing
joint communiqués. China shifted from Deng Xiaoping’s policy of ‘keeping a low
profile’ to ‘striving for achievement’ after Xi came to power in 2012. Chinese
foreign policy maven Yan Xuetang says that China seeks to gain more power
regionally and internationally not by distancing itself from any power but by
engaging them and supporting small countries to grow.
Additionally,
China’s engagement with Nepal is the result of its policy of ‘peripheral
diplomacy’, which is helping and participating in the development efforts of
the neighbouring countries. Oli’s visit has been seemingly successful on the
basis of China’s policy, and not because Nepal did the required homework to
lift the relationship to a new level. This is where Nepal has failed and will
continue to suffer even though China wants to help it prosper. A prognosis of
Oli’s visit to China will not be accurate because the northern neighbour’s
foreign policy is strongly guided by a realist attitude and not idealistic
thoughts. Oli, who believes in shrewd deceptive politics, went to India
suggesting that his leadership would not lean towards the north at the cost of
the southern neighbour. Failing to issue a joint communiqué from New Delhi was
his failure; but more than that, it was a failure of Nepal’s collective
leadership.
The
hype in Nepal over the signing of the Agreement on Transit Transport with China
and Nepal was a result of the frustration caused by the months-long economic
blockade by India. Arguably, it is an achievement, but it is Nepal’s right as a
landlocked country to get transit facilities from its neighbours. The central
issue is whether China will help Nepal to actually diversify its trade routes.
The joint communiqué includes one of the major issues of connectivity, which is
to develop a railway line between China and Nepal. If both the sides start
working on it seriously and implement it, the rail link is expected to bring economic
development through trade and tourist inflows from the Middle Kingdom. However,
China has not promised to build the railway line. The language of the joint
communiqué is clear that China will consider it after Nepal submits a detailed
proposal.
Trade, not aid
There
should be frequent high-level visits between the two countries if they are
serious about boosting connectivity. And while trying to connect Nepal with the
world through the northern door, China should open up the politically
complicated Tibet to the world. One of the conditions for China to become a
superpower is to open itself up without any hesitation. The question is when,
and more importantly, if the communist leadership is ready to go that far.
Conducting bilateral cooperation, synergising the development plans of the two
countries, carrying out projects under the framework of the Belt and Road
Initiative and increasing land and air connectivity are important. But the
issue here is that Nepal lacks serious homework on how to make the optimal
utilisation of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Accelerating
the feasibility study for the Araniko Highway repair project,
Syabrubeshi-Rasuwagadhi Highway repair and opening maintenance project,
building a bridge over the Karnali River at Hilsa and upgrading the Kathmandu
Ring Road are some of the schemes for which China has extended support during
Oli’s visit. They are indeed welcome, but what is important to notice is
whether Nepal can foster an environment to attract Chinese outbound foreign direct
investment (FDI). Without FDI, Nepal will not be able to emerge from the
current status no matter how much foreign aid it gets. Continuing down the road
to prosperity, Nepal will have to work with both China and India. The only safe
way is to devise a neighbourhood policy to deal with the two rising powers.
Nepal should state clearly what it wants from them and what it can offer in
return. Pragmatic deals are far more important than diplomatic grandeur for a
country like Nepal reeling under poverty and underdevelopment.
