Nepal is main venue of anti-China activities

Chandra Prakash Gajurel

Polit Bureau Member, Nepal Communist Party-Maoist

TGQ1: The Chinese foreign minister recently said that China was ready to safeguard Nepal’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Is it that the country has been pushed to that level?

Gajurel: It is not so at the moment. Nevertheless, the Chinese Ambassadors and Ministers have been talking on that line since long. The Chinese have been saying since long that if there is any sort of attack on Nepal’s sovereignty and geographical integrity, China will be ever ready to support Nepal. China might have told so sensing that of late foreign interference, more so from the immediate neighbor, has increased in Nepal.

China perhaps told these things upon studying the Nepali scenario as it stood today.

From when such interferences began to your knowledge?

Gajurel: The unequal treaties that we have signed with immediate neighbor in itself tantamount to interference. But why this issue took a different dimension in these days is because only last Thursday, the parliament members raised the issue that at 54 different places Nepal’s lands have been encroached upon by the other side. We can call such acts as interference or even encroachment. Of the total 54 places where Nepalese lands have been illegally occupied, there are two such places wherein a sizeable chunk of our lands have been already amalgamated by the other side.

Well, what must be kept in mind is that there has been interference in Nepal’s politics from that side and it has also been seen that the other side pushes its instructions every now and then. Isn’t it?

TGQ2: Has the time already come to invite third country to resolve Nepal-India border dispute?

Gajurel: No! It is not that. The time has not come yet. We must resolve our issues bilaterally.

But your Home Minister recently sought the Chinese support to resolve the Kalapani land dispute with India?

Gajurel: We have felt that the Indian interests in Nepal have exponentially gone up in these days. We, however, don’t want to tease India in this regard and come up as a different sort of nationalists. This would not be logical. Neither we want to “use” India. But the time has come that we must put the entire Nepali perspective in a positive and forceful manner for the perusal of the Indian government.

TGQ3: Why it is that we always raise the issue of 1950 treaty but shelve the matter every time. What could be the reason?

Gajurel: This is a paradox. All happen to raise this issue but shelve it sine die.

At least, I could raise this issue at a New Delhi seminar recently. Many Indians told me that at least you put your things straight. To tell you frankly, the 1950 Treaty has become a “burden” for the Indian establishment as well. Neither it can abandon the treaty nor can it carry on with it.

The treaty is in itself a faulty one in that it has no provision of affecting a review on a timely basis. Either you scrap it or bear with it. This is the position.

When we talk of scrapping the treaty, India gets irritated. India maintains that how come Nepal got the strength to challenge the Indian establishment? The other side presumes that it should be China behind such Nepali strength?

Be that as it may, the treaty as such has already become a “heavy” burden both for Nepal and India to put it plainly.

TGQ4: Two of your ministers recently sneaked into the Chinese territory without informing the government. Doesn’t this event force one to raise questions as regards the motive of such a secret visit?

Gajurel: This is impossible. No ministers can do that. I too went to Lhasa but did not inform the party. I went to Lhasa without introducing myself to avoid making an issue out of the visit.

However, while crossing half of the bridge, one Chinese police officer recognized me and demanded certain documents. Luckily, the party unit too was present there which facilitated my easy entrance into Khasa.

But it was a case associated with the government ministers? Wasn’t it?

Gajurel: Why to make a mountain out of a mole? Has it been written any where that it would be a crime if one stepped into the Chinese land? It would have been a different matter if some high Chinese officials had arrived there and met with the Nepalese ministers. But it was not so then why to blow up the issue out of proportion?

TGQ5: There is the growing fear among the population that Nepal could turn up some time soon into Yugoslavia and Haiti if India, the US and China are allowed to play in Nepal?

Gajurel: If we talk of the recent days activities, Kathmandu has become the venue for initiating anti-Tibet activities. While China was busy with its Olympic games, each and every day there could be seen anti-China activities. The anti-China activities went to the extent that some enthusiasts even tried to climb the Nepali mountains wearing “Free-Tibet” vests.

The Dalai Lama lives in Dharmashala, India. However, there were no such protests against China in India. Now it has been an established fact that the Dalai men came down to Kathmandu and encouraged the anti-China protests during that time. It became evidently clear that some one tried to make Nepal their play ground.

If China senses a threat to its security, it will not remain as a mere onlooker. The talk of Yugoslavia is thus not in the talk for nothing.

2008-12-09 16:11:59
Source: Telegraphnepal.com.np

Unlike Indians the Chinese keep up with their words and promises

Mohan Baidya Pokharel ‘KIRAN’

Senior Leader, United Maoist Party

On Threat of A counter Revolution

The people want to see a complete change. There are nevertheless, great challenges ahead of us in our fight for the preservation of our nationalism and total freedom. Mainly, the threats are emerging from the reactionary camps and foreign forces. In this situation, it is still not very clear if the people will emerge as victor. Thus we see that the threat of a counter revolution is still looming large. We are not afraid of the prevailing situation, I think it is rather, we have analyzed the situation quite well. And, also we are completely aware of the ongoing and possible conspiracies against us. We believe that the possibility of a counter revolution remain intact until we draft the new constitution. To clarify more, there is also the presence of reactionary forces in the Constituent Assembly who are conspiring through various means.

On Nepali Congress

The NC has both positive and negative sides. To stand against the monarchy and the stand for republic declaration is the positive part of the NC. But the major question where will the NC stand in the process of drafting the new constitution? In the Ethnic, Gender and Regional issues where will the NC stand, it will perhaps determine the inclination of the NC? To tell you frankly, over the issues of Nationalism and Republic, NC has been still stuck with the status quoist mindset. Surfacially, the NC also seems to be democratic outfit but internally it is not so. Thus we have been watching it very carefully.

On Foreign Interference and India

Clearly, the foreign interference is at an all time high. However, it is completely a false allegation that we came into the peace process with the foreign support. There was the Indian support in the Peoples uprising, there were other forms of support as well. Altogether, it does not and should not mean that we have no moral to raise the issues of national interest now.

There has been the tradition that Nepali politicos reach agreements in New Delhi. The 2007 B.S. agreement was reached in New Delhi. However, the 12-Point Agreement reached between the Seven Parties and the Maoists in New Delhi was made in the interest of Nepal itself but not in the interest of New Delhi.

Nevertheless, now, India is doing all it can to extract “compound interest” out of the 12-Points Agreements made in New Delhi. It is also visible.

Security wise, relation with neighbors is based on mutual trust. One must respect the other. The relationship is based on certain values. But, India has been adopting different principles. If our identity is threatened we will not remain silent. This is it. We must raise the issue of abrogating all the past unequal treaties with India including that of 1950 Treaty. Similarly, issues of land occupation in Susta, Kalapani, Pashupatinagar must also be raised. In the issues of Citizenship, water-resources and Security—we must stop abiding by the long drawn Indian strategy.

The world has changed lot, India must thus also revise its strategy and sign treaties with Nepal on equal basis. We want to have good relations with India but that relation must remain free from coercion.

On Strong ties with China, fears in India

Unlike Indians, the Chinese, on the other hand, keep up with their words and promises. The Chinese policy of non-interference is well practiced even as of today. Whereas the Indians have been using the transitional period in Nepal for their benefit, occupying our lands and unnecessarily interfering in our exclusive affairs. The Chinese would never do that. China is clear in its intent whereas India is still unclear.

On Broader Democratic Alliance

Our administration is set with either the erstwhile Panchayati or multi-party period mindset. Old mindset is still prevalent in our administration. We still practice old laws and regulations. However, the Maoists are the ones who advocate in favor of building new structure by demolishing the old redundant ones. Basically, this is what the people also want from us. But, we have been trapped by those plagued with old mindset and we have been paralyzed. Look at the difficulty, we have to continue with the old setup, yet have to bring something new as well. Unless we remove the old, how can we build a new one? We must need a breakthrough at this point. We are searching for the path where we can push our agenda. The people have sacrificed their blood for change but not to retract.

On Performances of Government

In reality, we are also not satisfied. There are various reason for this, however, it is also not that the government has already tied its hands and sitting in an idle mood. We are doing our best to make the government becoming more effective as demanded by the people at large. But, the UML- our partner, is taking on the turtle stance.

But, since we are already in government, the possibilities are either we fail or we succeed. Let me guarantee, we will not fail. And, it is not that we have to stick to power for long, we can take on the road to yet another revolution. If we can’t bring changes while being in the government, we will adopt revolutionary measures to achieve our set goals and objectives.

On whether Mohan Baidya has surrendered to Prachanda?

I have not surrendered to any one, Prachanda is our party boss thus I respect him. On ideological grounds, I have never surrendered. We always move ahead holding healthy debates and discussions. We have already devised our new strategies to run the party affairs. We did not limit ourselves to the “Democratic Republic”, we took the line to establish typical kind of Democratic Republican order. We favor a Peoples’ Federal Democratic National Republic. While adopting the line, no one has been defeated, the party has won. The People’s desire has been fulfilled.

We want our form of republican order immediately. The old model of republic can not address the problem of the people but only the peoples’ republic can which is what is our ultimate goal.

(Dristi Vernacular Weekly, 17 March 2009)

China keen to re-engage with Nepal

Paul Soren

China last week supported the April 10 Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and reaffirmed its support to the peace process and economic assistance aimed to bring peace and political stability in the country. Of late, China has begun taking a keen interest in the unfolding political developments in Nepal. On March 2, Chinese Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei led a nine-member delegation to Nepal. During their three-day visit, the delegation met with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Chief of the Army Staff General Rukmangat Katuwal, Foreign Secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya and participated in the 7th consultative conference of Foreign Ministers of the two countries.
Although China had sent several high-level official delegations to Nepal last year, it was the first official foreign ministry delegation to Nepal. Through these visits China aimed to revive the dormant relationship between the two countries, stagnated primarily due to Nepal’s internal political instability and the active-presence of foreign powers in the region. China also promised to extend road and railway network and supply fuel to Nepal. The proposed rail link connecting Kathmandu to Lhasa will put the Chinese in a more advantageous position. This will reduce Nepal’s over-dependence on India. Furthermore, China promised to expand cooperation with Nepal and support Nepal’s cause in regional and international forum, including SAARC.
Earlier, China maintained a distance from the democratic forces and preferred to align with the monarchy. However, in the changed circumstances, China was keen to engage with the democratic forces and the new political dispensation. It would like to have a dispensation in Kathmandu which would benefit China’s national interest and support its policies on Tibet and Taiwan. More importantly, China would like to see the Indian influence and growing western presence in Nepal reduced.

Source: South Asia Weekly, March 9, 2008

NEPAL: FRATERNAL RELATIONS TO BIND NEPAL MAOISTS AND CPC?

Kathmandu: Visibly, the Maoists paraphernalia appear to be all prepared to keep a comfortable distance with the Indian establishment contrary to what they have had in the past or being presumed to be. Clearly, the Maoists hobnob with the Chinese establishment in the recent months and weeks hint that the Maoists in Nepal have come to their senses and that they just want to bring into effect a what could be best described as a “paradigm political shift” in their relations with India.

Its corollary would be that the Nepali Maoists “under compulsion or being guided by certain strategies” want to redefine their relations with India and begin a new chapter in their relations with Nepal’s northern neighbor. That the Chinese establishment too wishes to expand its sphere of political influence in Nepal and have formal “ties” with the Maoists party became visible when the visiting Chinese high flying Chinese authority Dr. Wang Jiarui and the members in his delegation spent some good three hours with the top-hats of the Maoists party at the Dwarikas Hotel Monday morning.

The meet of the Maoists leaders with the Chinese high level authorities and vice versa does clearly explain that both the sides are and were willing to “meet” each other and initiate on how such an “unclear” relations be legitimized. In effect, the meet in itself provides a sort of “recognition” to the Nepal’s Maoist party by the Chinese establishment as Dr. Wang is a very powerful man in the Chinese political hierarchy.

Thus the Maoists have been already recognized by the Chinese side and soon the two are expected to announce their formal linkages with each other on party lines. What political impact such a Chinese recognition would have then upon the Maoists? This is very important question indeed. Firstly, such recognition to the Maoists by the Chinese side would automatically distance the Maoists relationship whatever they have had in the past or is at the moment with the Indian communist parties. This is for sure.

To recall, though the Indian communist parties were close to the Maoists, however, in practice what has been well recorded is that when it comes to the preservation of the Indian national interests, the communist parties in India too do not spare their Nepali counterparts. “They tend to squeeze in tune with the Indian government’s structured policy towards Nepal that is to “weaken, smash and finally grab”, opine analysts.

However, such a new relationship with the Chinese Communist Party will act as a “political deterrent” to the Indian designs against Nepal. After such recognition by the Chinese communist party, the Maoists party can fairly adopt an “equi-proximity” policy if not that of the “equi-distance”. To recall, India disproves the equi-distance policy in the conduct of relations of Nepal with India and China.

Thus with the new relationship, Maoists will have abundant choice on how to proceed with their party agenda and will be rather more free in defining their relations with India. In such an eventuality, the Indian grip over the Maoists will lessen to a considerable extent. The second political impact on the Maoists would be positive one, say analysts. According to them, the moment Chinese Communist Party recognizes the Nepalese Maoists party, a sort of “fraternal” relations would be in existence which instantly would press the some what errant Maoists to “behave” as a communist but a democratic party.

Since the recognition would be a binding one upon the Maoists’, the latter would have to abide by the norms and the universal values of a democratic system. This would mean that such recognition in some way or the other will have profound impact upon the Maoists political behaviour and they will have to shun their previous aggressive and at times violent stances. In sum, though the two sides have not yet formally recognized each other as a fraternal party but yet the rumors are there that it would be declared soon.

In such an eventuality, the Maoists will have to change their present political credentials what they have at the moment and transform themselves into a fairly democratic party that would be demanded of them. Finally, such recognition would surely distance the Maoists with the Indian establishment. India will be the loser. In addition, such recognition by the Chinese establishment will automatically bring the now cornered “nationalist” forces together, including the monarch. In such an eventuality, the political equation will definitely see a sea change.

It is in this light, the would-be Indian annoyance in the pipeline should be viewed. Notably, the UML leaders, Bam Dev Gautam and Jhal Nath Khanal deliberately distanced themselves from the meeting, when their own boss held meetings with Dr. Wang and his delegation members. Gautam and Khanal are considered to be new “converts” for reasons unknown to the analysts.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, December 5, 2007

Chinese Delegation Meets Maoist Leaders

Kathmandu, December 3The visiting Chinese delegation headed by Wang Jiarui, Minister of Foreign Department of Chinese Communist Party met the chairman of CPN-Maoist Prachanda and other senior Maoist leaders at Hotel Dwarikas in Kathmandu this morning.During the meeting, the Chinese team raised concern over the deferral of constituent assembly elections in Nepal. Maoist leaders informed the delegation that they were committed to make ongoing peace process a success. Maoist leaders and Chinese team also discussed the current political deadlock and other contemporary issues, sources said. Maoist second-in-command Dr Baburam Bhattarai and senior leader Ram Bahadur Thapa 'Badal' among others were present in the meeting.Yeterday, the Chinese team met former Prime Minister and Nepali Congress (NC) leader Sher Bahadur Deuba and Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP) leader Narayan Man Bijukche. The Chinese team will wrap up its Nepal visit tomorrow.

Source: The Himalayan Times, December 3, 2007

CHINESE HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION ARRVING TO ASSESS NEPAL SITUATION

Kathmandu: Nepal’s threat loaded political transition appears to have jolted the northern neighbor China as well of late. It is understandable that any political upheaval in Nepal’s Terai or mountains would have a “direct” impact upon the security situation of adjoining Nepal-China borders. And thus any interest taken by China in the unfolding turbulent political situation in this country can’t be taken otherwise. This is so also because India-the real trouble maker-has been taking more than the desired and the required interests in the political situation in this country and thus China’s –better late than never-exhibition of her legitimate interests in Nepali affairs is not only genuine but warranted as well.

In the recent weeks and months, it is becoming visibly clear that China will not leave this “beleaguered” country to the mercy of foreign forces more so that of India. Of late the Chinese high authorities have begun taking “proper” and the needed interest in the political developments unfolding in this country much to the chagrin of those who conclude that Nepal must remain under their periphery and thus abide by the dictates passed on to Nepal and its Indo-pendent leaders.

No wonder then China is sending a high level delegation to Nepal led by Dr. Wang Jiarui, who is the 17th CPC Central Committee, Head of the International Liaison Department of the CPC Central Committee of China to assess the political situation here. Dr. Jirui is considered to be a high level authority in the Chinese political hierarchy and thus his trip to Kathmandu would “mean” much to Nepal, analysts say. The Chinese dignitary is expected to be in Nepal at the invitation of Nepal’s foreign ministry by the end of this month. Unsubstantiated reports have it that Dr. Wang is coming Nepal on 30th November.

Reports say that Dr. Wang has already left the Chinese Capital and is currently in the Republic of Korea. Upon completion of this visit, he is expected to head for Nepal for a four day long sojourn here. The Chinese delegation led by Dr. Wang is supposed to meet Nepal’s Prime Minister and various leaders of Nepal’s political parties. Dr. Wang’s visit is coincided with one Maoists top-hats’ declaration recently that the Maoists party will “soon” have formal ties with the Communist party of China. Ram Bahadur Thapa alias Badal talking to a weekly recently declared that his party will soon have “formal” ties with the Communist party of China. To recall, the Chinese envoy in Nepal, Zheng Xiangling, also had some time back said that his country was about to establish formal links with the Maoists party of Nepal. Dr. Wang’s visit is loaded with meaning given the envoy’s admission that his country’s party will have “relations” with the Maoists.

Such“heart rendering” news might not be taken in good taste by the Indian side which concludes that the Nepali Maoists must abide by their dictates. The Chinese delegation upon the completion of his brief Nepal sojourn is all set to make an official trip to India wherein he is supposed to meet Sonia Gandhi and other influential leaders of there. Unconfirmed reports say that Dr. Wang is raising the issue of Nepal’s Terai crisis with the Indian leaders. High placed sources say that Dr. Wang in New Delhi may remind the Indian establishment of what the then Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of China, Marshal Chen Yi, had talked of Nepal. To recall, Marshal Chen Yi had told that any attack on Nepal would be construed as an attack on mainland China itself. The Chinese envoy in Kathmandu too talked in the recent months that Marshal Chen Yi’s views were still valid. This adds to the significance of Dr. Wang’s visit to India and his possible talks about Nepal hinting India not to “harass” the northern neighbor-Nepal.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, November 25, 2007

China’s New Assertiveness in Nepal

Bhaskar Roy

In an interview (June 17) to the publication “Nepal” the new China Ambassador to Nepal, Zheng Xialing, said “China shall not tolerate any foreign intervention in Nepal”. Ambassador Zheng explained, “Whenever the Nepali people face any problem or difficulty, China shall treat them as our own especially when the problems pertain to sovereignty or territorial integrity (emphasis added).

A reading of the text of the interview leaves no doubt that it was carefully prepared in advance by the interviewer and the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu to convey certain messages to India and, also, apparently to the USA. For example, the interviewer recalled Chinese Vice Premier Marshall Chen Yi had said China would not tolerate foreign interference in Nepal, and asked whether that policy had changed.

Other important questions included China’s concerns on Free Tibet campaigners’ activities in Nepal, acceptance of Nepal as a republic and US views of Maoists as terrorists. This interview can be considered as glimpses into China’s readjusted foreign policy towards Nepal after the fall of King Gyanendra and the monarchy. Zheng Xialing’s observations are not idle statements of a senior diplomat, but highly significant and meaningful.

Nepal has been one of the important elements in China’s Indo-Himalayan strategy to ultimately push the de facto Sino-Indian border from Kashmir to Bhutan closer to India’s heartland. Nepal is one of the “five-fingers” strategy of late Mao Zedong. It spells Beijing’s influence and control over Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh. To the “five fingers”, there are indications that a “toe” is being added. Some of the Tibetans who have been won over by the Chinese are locating along the Indo-Himalayan belt from Ladakh to Sikkim. Kathmandu is one of the very important centers for meetings between China operatives and their Tibetan contacts from India.

Returning to Ambassador Zheng Xialing’s assurance to protect Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity including from foreign intervention in Nepal, the hardline from Beijing is unmistakable. To this was the added reference to Marshall Chen Yi’s similar statement of assurance in 1962.

Reference to 1962 is of particular importance. The Chinese propaganda machinery frequently claims that India’s “illegal” incursion deeper into Chinese territory was dealt a humiliating blow by the Chinese army, the PLA. In the context of Nepal, Zheng’s statements, obviously cleared by Beijing, does border on not so camouflaged warning to India over Nepal’s affairs.

There is a territorial problem between India and Nepal over Kalapani, which is with India. The matter was thought to have been a settled issue, till Chinese President Jiang Zemin reportedly encouraged the Nepalese governement and Palace to reopen the issue during his official visit to Kathmandu in December, 1996. Almost immediately following President Jiang’s visit the Nepalese reopened the issue with India both officially and through public protests. According to reports, the Kalapani issue has not gone away and friendly Chinese delegations visiting Nepal allegedly remind the Nepalese periodically. The policy is to keep the fire burning slowly till the time comes to raise the intensity and get it raging.

Nepal had three main pillars, and a fourth one was growing. Beijing nurtured all the three i.e. the Palace, the Royal Nepalese Army (now Nepalese Army), and the Nepali Congress (NC). Given the historic importance of the monarchy, especially the belief among the common people that the king is the reincarnation of the God Vishnu on earth, the Palace was Beijing’s first choice for friendship. The army leadership was with the Palace and, hence, scripted for Chinese coalition. The NC was a different issue, with its traditional linkages with India, but NC leaders tried to maintain a balance between Beijing and New Delhi. The CPN (UML), among the left parties became particularly close to the Chinese. The CPN (Maoist) had a problem, having gone underground, fighting the monarchy from 1990. That, however, does not mean the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu did not have any contact with the Maoists. They did, but very carefully.
During the people’s uprising led by the Maoists from 2000, Beijing made a strategic policy mistake, something uncharacteristic for them. They believed the Palace with the army would prevail again, and remained openly pro-Palace. But unlike India, China had already set up some controlled institutions in the country through their old friends, but fully controlled by Beijing through their embassy in Kathmandu.

The Nepal – China Study Centers (NCSC) and fully funded by China and locally supervised by Madhav Nepal, CPN (UML) leader. While the head office of NCSC in located in Kathmandu, the branch offices numbering now more than seven are located close to the Indian border. These centers are involved in anti-India influence peddling, collection of information, promoting China etc. But the NCSC members can be much more damaging. Their potential to create mischief in the Terai region is enormous, and they can remain undetected. The Terai region is already restive, with no united stand even among the Madhesis.

Another Chinese institution is Nepal-China Mutual Co-operation Society (NCMCS). Again funded through the Chinese Embassy, the co-ordination has been entrusted to Prof. Ballab Mani Dahal. The main task of the NCMCS is to promote China and denigrate India and other US as colonialists and exploiters.

The perception in India that it has come up on top in Nepal is all very well. Maoist supremo Prachanda is on record to thank India for its support to the anti-monarchy movement. India is also mediating in the political crises in Nepal, which would be construed in China’s strategic calculations as “intervention”. This is exactly what Ambassador Zheng said in his interview that China would not allow in Nepal.

During the end months of turmoil and the initial stages of return of democracy, China decided to allow India to take the front position. China was in no position to put its foot in the swirling political waters in Nepal. It decided to nourish its constituencies, including firming a better relationship with the Maoists. This is expected to be a totally new relationship.

The China-Nepal railway in the making needs to be viewed in terms of a new strategic advantage for China. The railway project should be operational next year, providing greater connectivity both for passengers and goods between the two countries. It would be a handle for the anti-India Nepalese factions, and would erode to some extant Nepal’s total dependence on India for access to sea ports, notwithstanding the cost difference. It may also be kept in mind China is always capable of providing “friendship” prices to “friends”.

The new political crises in Nepal with the indefinite postponement of the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls for a second time on October 5 could create a fertile ground for Chinese covert intervention. China’s friends, the CPN (UML) and the Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party (NMKP) opposed the postponement of the polls, thus dividing the original seven party coalition. The Maoists reneged on the earlier agreement, demanding the country be declared a republic before the CA elections. The reunited NC is sitting rather ineptly in the middle without taking a firm position. Under these conditions India’s leading role in Kathmandu to bring about a reconciliation and emerge as the chief arbitrator in Nepal’s politics goes against Chinese strategic interests.
Ambassador Zheng’s interview portends not only China’s hard-line policy in Nepal vis-à-vis India, but this is likely to extend in their policies to other countries in South Asia to further compress India in its immediate neighborhood. An inimical neighborhood would hamper India’s development and some of the countries of South Asia may be more than willing to play China’s game. It appears a major foreign policy challenge is coming up. It will not do to sweep things under the carpet. The issue will be too big to hide anywhere. The only answer can be a proactive foreign policy.

Source: South Asian Analysis Group, October 8, 2007

INDIA-CHINA PERSPECTIVE: NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS

Jan Sharma

India’s long-standing policy towards Nepal seeks to:

(a) Engage all political forces, including the CPN-M as well as the monarchy,
(b) Install a government friendly to India,
(c) Forestall any government unfriendly to India,
(d) Promote Indian political, economic and security interests,
(e) Thwart any attempt to challenge Indian supremacy and domination in Nepal, and
(f) Prevent Nepal diversifying sources of arms other than India. India’s interests in Nepal are extensive – from security to water resources for irrigation.

Nepal also shares a 1,880 km border with India to the east, south and west, and the best military talents among the Nepali hill people are recruited in the Indian Army estimated to be over 100,000. India has also refused to recruit a single Madhesi Nepal in their army obviously on grounds of their inferior military qualities. In addition, there are over 115,000 Indian government pensioners in Nepal whose welfare is the responsibility of the Indian Army Ex-Servicemen Welfare Organization (IEWON). It’s a huge network, given the number of family members and dependents, most of them in remote hills where CPN-M has its sway. The conflict-induced exodus of young Nepalis in India is estimated at 4 million and rising.

Top CPN-M leaders operated from India, giving credence to popular perception that the so-called “people’s war” was in fact a tool of Indian diplomacy. The meeting between Prachanda and leaders of communist parties represented in Parliament at Champasari near Siliguri in India in August 2001 and again in Lucknow on November 20, 2003 and March 29, 2004 was a huge embarrassment to India. In the context of the 9/11, Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh of India in September 2001 described the Maoists as “terrorists,” and pledged full support to Nepal to fight it. His successor Yashwant Sinha during his visit to Nepal in August 2002 expressed “concern over the clandestine use of the Nepali soil by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence for anti-Indian activities.” Indian Chief of the Army Staff General N. C. Vij visited Nepal in April 2002 to discuss military cooperation.

India nabbed Chandra Prasad Gajurel, Maoist Politburo member, at Chennai airport in India on August 19, 2003 and formally charged him of traveling under a fake document to Europe. Some saw it as a “major rethink” of India’s policy [Josse, 2004]. Unlike Gajurel, Matrika Prasad Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar arrested in Lucknow in India on February 8, 2004 were handed over to Nepal without formal charges. The arrest of Mohan Vaidya, second highest ranking in party command after Prachanda, in Siliguri on March 29, 2004 was described as a “consequence of the alliance and bargaining between the Indian and Nepali feudal rulers against Nepal’s rivers and other natural resources” [Prachanda, 2004]. Indian security officials seized important documents, including maps outlining planned Maoist attacks on security targets in Nepal.

It was reported that CPN-M was creating bases in Bihar to target security forces in Nepal and that international terror group and “a country hostile to India” may use them to create disturbances in the area and thus had “security implications” for India [TOI, 2003]. Instead of a military solution, India wanted a political solution, as indicated by its suggestion in November 2003 for the formation of a national government in Nepal to resolve conflict:

The Prime Minister of India expressed concern over the serious security situation prevailing in Nepal and stressed the need to take up urgent broad-based measures to deal with it. In this context, the Prime Minister reaffirmed India’s consistent position that a national consensus needs to be evolved based on the principles of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. This would require both the institution of monarchy as well as the political parties to demonstrate flexibility and reach a consensus to address the challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency. A representative government with the participation of all parliamentary parties, working in close cooperation with the monarchy, would assist in evolving a national response to the situation [Sarna, 2003].

The Indian policy has undergone subtle shift since a Left-backed Congress-led coalition of Manmohan Singh was installed in May 2004. Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh of India visited Nepal in June 2004 even as Prime Minister Deuba had not even formed his Cabinet. Singh gave an unsolicited advised to Nepal: “It is only a representative multiparty government, working in close concert with the institution of constitutional monarchy, which can restore political stability in Nepal. This would also pave the way for holding elections to new parliament and tackling the insurgency through peaceful negotiations” [EoI, 2004].

After the royal coup in February 2005, India suspended arms supplies and asked China to refuse arms to Nepal. New Delhi also successfully worked on a strategy to unite Prachanda and Bhattarai within the CPN-M, then cemented the SPA to oppose the king, and finally engineered SPAM “understanding” in what was a tactical shift to an alternative to the king from its earlier stand that constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy [India Today, 2005]. There was also suspicion that a prolonged freeze on military assistance would dilute traditional military cooperation between India and Nepal.

An Indian pro-establishment scholar argued for a “practical engagement” with the CPN-M to ensure Nepal’s stability, a “democratic monarchy” and “its internal autonomy preserved from the growing Western and other undesirable influences” [Muni, 2003]. India has been successful in pleading that “no arms should be given to Nepal which are more sophisticated than those in the Indian armoury” because India does not want “the level of conflict in Nepal to be upgraded” [Outlook, 2003]. India after the royal takeover of February 2005 was no more talking about constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy but was seeking “alternative” to the king [India Today, 2005].

India in a sense punished King Gyanendra not because of his assault on democracy and freedom but because of his audacity to challenge India’s supremacy at the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in Dhaka where it threatened to veto entry of Afghanistan as a new member unless China was simultaneously invited to join as an observer. The summit concluded with Afghanistan became the eighth member, and both China and Japan admitted as observers. China without even being present at the summit just tore up India’s Monroe doctrine [Mohan, 2005]. The summit declaration noted that “small states require special measures for support from all concerned for safeguarding their sovereign independence and territorial integrity” and that “protection of small states should be firmly rooted in scrupulous adherence to the UN Charter, rule of law, the strict adherence to universally accepted principles and norms related to sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states, irrespective of their size” [Dhaka Declaration, 2005].

China

China has traditionally lent strong and unequivocal support to the monarchy but is likely to have friendliest of relations with anyone in the saddle of power. China would like to have a stable and strong regime in Nepal because it borders Tibet, its soft underbelly. China is wary of hostile environment in the neighborhood, and is watching closely the activities of a large Tibetan population in Nepal. It has also been recently stressing on integrating the economies of Nepal and Tibet. It is for these considerations that Beijing described the royal coup as Nepal’s “internal affair.” At the same time, it has categorically disassociated itself with the CPN-M, saying “neither the communist party nor any entity of the government of the People’s Republic of China has any link with and support for the terrorists of Nepal.” The official Chinese position has always been that the Nepal government would “properly handle its domestic issues” [Zhang, 2001]. It subsequently accused self-styled Maoists, which it described as “anti-government forces” of “usurping the name of the leader of the Chinese people. China supports Nepal’s fight against the anti-government forces and hopes for peace, stability and economic development for its neighbour” [Liu, 2002].

During his first state visit to China in July 2002, King Gyanendra reassured President Jiang Zemin that Nepal “will not allow the emergence of elements ruining against the development of Nepal-China ties. It will not permit within its borders any activities that undermine China’s interests” [People’s Daily, 2002]. The reference was clearly Tibet, which Nepal recognizes as an inalienable and integral part of China. Beijing, which shares a 1,400 kilometer border with Nepal, is worried by the presence of an estimated 35,000 Tibetans in Nepal who have fled from Tibet and could launch anti-China activities from Nepal, as was the case with the Khampa insurgency in the 1960s and crushed by the Nepal Army in 1974. It is for this reason that it has been maintaining a close watch on the movement of Tibetans in Nepal, especially since the flight of Karmapa to India in the summer of 2000. In a major policy departure, the royal regime arrested 18 Tibetans, including eight minors, fleeing China into Nepal and handed over to the Chinese authorities in Kathmandu in July 2003.

Beijing welcomed the move but Washington deplored Nepal’s handling of the issue which “not only violates international norms and practices regarding the humane treatment of asylum seekers, but also tarnishes the Government of Nepal’s long-standing and well-deserved reputation for tolerance and hospitality.” Nepal subsequently closed down the office of the Dalai Lama’s Representative in Kathmandu near the royal palace. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stopped providing travel documents it had been providing since 1990 to Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees for third country travel. Nepal gave “unequivocal” support for the Chinese anti-secessionist law in 2005 authorizing the use of force against Taiwan [People’s Daily, 2005].

President Hu Jintao visited South Asian capitals in February 2005 but skipped Nepal. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing visited Nepal March 31-April 1, 2005 when he described the king’s direct rule as Nepal’s “internal matter which has nothing to do with China. Nepali people have full authority to tackle their internal politics and development.” Li quoted the king as saying, “Nepal appreciates and supports the important role that China has been playing in the international affairs” [Xinhua, 2005]. China and Nepal also agreed to promote military cooperation. An agreement was signed on military cooperation under which China was to provide Nepal eight million yuan (Rs.72 million) to promote “stability, development and peace in Nepal” and “combat internal and external terrorism.” The Sino-Nepal military cooperation alarmed India.

Since the regime change in 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama is back in business, as are pro-Tibet rallies. For example, in March 2007 a free-Tibet protest rally was held at Bouddha and Swayambhu, the two areas with a heavy concentration of Tibetan refugees, and a group set ablaze the Chinese national flag at Bhat Bhateni close to the Chinese Embassy. Celebrated Hollywood star Richard Gare, a well-known free-Tibet campaigner, addressed the Tibetan community to urge them to liberate Tibet. Then there was an American Everest Expedition, which demonstrated a banner urging solidarity for the "liberation" of Tibet. While the Nepal government has maintained a total silence on these developments, Chinese are worried by the changes and currently engaging major political parties.

Source: Telegraph Nepal, October 17, 2007

Nepal Maoists start anti-Dalai Lama campaign

In a significant development, Nepal's Maoist guerrillas are mounting a campaign against the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. The Janadisha daily, the Maoist mouthpiece that reflects the party's views, said that a secret meeting had taken place in the Kathmandu valley to plan strategies for an anti-China secessionist movement from Dharamshala. Dharamsala, in Himachal Pradesh state in India, is where the Dalai Lama has his government-in-exile, which is not recognised by any country. The front-page report Monday, with a photograph of the red-robed Dalai Lama, said China's growing interest in Nepal's political developments had made "some forces" apprehensive, and they were trying to foment anti-China activities. It said that last month Christian groups from nearly 20 countries had held a nine-day conference at a resort in the valley.

It alleged that though the conference was ostensibly called to discuss religious issues, it meant to add momentum to the movement to free Tibet from China. Buddhist monks from India, Nepal, Japan, the US, Britain, Germany, Uganda, France, Israel, Argentina, Chile, Iraq and Tibet took part in the meet, it said. According to the report, the participants discussed fomenting a secessionist movement in Tibet so that Beijing would become preoccupied with retaining the annexed kingdom. This would enable India and the US to intervene in Nepal. Despite pledging commitment to multi-party democracy, Nepal's Maoists remain anti-religion, following the way of northern neighbour China. Maoist chief Prachanda has ruled out allowing the office of the Dalai Lama's representative in Kathmandu to re-open, saying his party would not condone any action that could displease China. Ironically, it was King Gyanendra, whom the Maoists opposed, who ordered its closure. The new government adheres to the China policy formulated by the royal regime even while it has overturned the king's other policies.

Last year, when the Maoists signed a peace pact mediated by India, they said they wanted the same harmonious relations with both their immediate neighbours, China and India. But since they quit the government, the Maoists have started hardening their stance towards Nepal's southern neighbour. They have flayed the recent visit to Kathmandu by India's special envoy Shyam Saran, who asked the government to hold the stalled general election at the earliest and not to abolish monarchy through a vote in parliament. The rebels have called his comments naked intervention by India. India's diplomatic policy towards Nepal has been floundering since it helped a multi-party government end King Gyanendra's regime and come to power. China, on the other hand, enjoys the best possible relations with Kathmandu though it supported the royal regime and sold it arms and ammunition to hunt down the Maoists.

Source: Hindustan Times, October 16, 2007

Nixon, Mao And Nepali Maoists

Ritu Raj Subedi

The White House, the centre of world capitalism, has not always been an enemy of the Maoist world. In one of the eventful eras of US politics, former US President Nixon triggered a series of shocks, known as 'Nixon shocks,' in US history. One such shock was his dramatic visit to China and recognition of Mao's regime. This took place at a time when the whole western block was hostile and refused to recognise Red China. After Nixon's visit, the world's leaders beat a path to Mao's door.Cold WarAgainst the backdrop of worsening Sino-Soviet relations, Nixon wanted to balance the Cold War by wooing Mao. On the other hand, Mao wanted to re-launch himself on the international stage by rolling a red carpet for Nixon. However, their meeting did not happen so simply. In the beginning, both the sides were very aware about their images and did not want to be seen as courting each other. But it was Mao's side that broke the ice. In November 1970, Zhou En-Lai sent a message through the Romanians, who had good relations with both China and the US, saying that Nixon would be welcome in Beijng. The White House responded very carefully. It made no reference to a presidential visit, thinking that the idea would be 'premature and potentially embarrassing.' As the issue of a visit did not gain momentum, one event that took place in the sport sector gave a new twist to the scenario. In March, China sent a table tennis team to Japan for the world championship. In an interesting development, a US player got on a Chinese bus and shook hands and talked to a Chinese player. The US player expressed his desire to come to China to participate in a sport event. Mao first turned down the US request. After many deliberations, he phoned the Foreign Ministry at midnight to invite the US team.The news caused a sensation in the world. The American and western media made fascinating reports on it on a daily basis. "Nixon," wrote a commentator, "was truly amazed at how the story jumped off the sports pages and onto the front pages."The ping-pong diplomacy of Mao captivated Nixon. In his memoir, his Security Advisor Henry Kissinger wrote, "Nixon was excited to the point of euphoria. He wanted to skip the emissary stage lest it take the glow off his own journey." By the end of May, it was settled, in secret, that Nixon would go to China.By inviting Nixon, Mao got many things. The US abandoned its old ally Taiwan and offered China a permanent Security Council seat at the UN with veto power. It was fixed during the behind-the-scene meeting between Kissinger and Zhou. The US made a huge commitment to pull all forces out of Indochina and Korea. Kissinger also agreed to give sensitive information on Russia to China. Mao even floated the idea of forging a Sino-US alliance against the Soviet Union to obtain sophisticate military technology and boost China's aircraft industry and superpower programme.At the meeting, Nixon told Mao, "The Chairman's writings moved a nation and have changed the world." But a clever Mao manipulated Nixon's visit in a way that he continued to be seen as an anti-American champion in the world. However, Nixon was not a loser. At home, the American people praised him for opening a door to China and trying to bring the Vietnam war to an end. He was paid off in his second-term presidential win by a huge margin. Until he was disgraced and forced to resign as president over his role in the 'Watergate scandal,' he remained a successful Republican President. Almost three-and-a-half-decades later, President George W. Bush of Nixon's party has refused to recognise the CPN-Maoist of Prachanda who has followed Mao's doctrine to seize power using guerrilla warfare tactics. Nixon's man is ignoring Mao's disciple. May be that the Nepali Maoists do not hold as strategic an importance as Mao who completely tamed his enemy and ruled a colossal China. On the other hand, Prachanda has won the insurgency only by half. He could not bust the powers of his enemy. By courting Mao, Nixon challenged Kremlin that resulted in the singing of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT).The White House often cites Maoist violent activities as a factor to put the terrorist tag on them. Comparing the atrocities of the Nepali Maoists to Mao's excesses seen during the Cultural Revolution, the Great Purge and in crushing his long-time comrades, the former tend to be less ruthless. Going by the statements of Maoist leaders, Nepal holds strategic value for the US because of its geo-political location. Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, a Maoist ideologue, talking to this author, claimed that the US is keeping an eye on the rising Asian super powers - China and India - by consolidating its position in Nepal. Whatever the intention of the US in treating the Maoists as terrorists, its policy towards the Nepali Maoists might create a new diplomatic paradigm. China is now in search of a reliable force in Nepal after the monarchy, its long-time trustworthy ally who is struggling for survival. Communist China always considered the king a reliable force in keeping its territorial interests intact. It is said that Chairman Mao had suggested that the Nepali communists work with king against the backdrop of Chinese hostility to India. Silent diplomacyGrowing Chinese interest in the Nepali peace process and the visit of a top Maoist commander to China is an indication that China will no more maintain silent diplomacy here. And the America's continued hard posture towards the Maoists will only give birth to another ally against it in the region.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 1, 2007

The Growing Foreign Concern for Nepal

With the development of peace building process foreign concern in Nepal has increased in massive Level. Each and every country directly or indirectly related to Nepal is concerning about Nepal and its peace building process according to their global and regional influence. But the critics say that it is foreign intervention upon internal politics of Nepal. China, which often remains silent in Nepalese politics, has also been showing its concern since April movement of 2006. Especially it has seen in massive scale when Chinese ambassador to Nepal, Zheng Xianglin said any foreign intervention in Nepal "will not be tolerable for China," in an interview published in Nepal magazine, last month. Though China has not faced any charge from critic about intervention. But it is said that America and India have been playing vital role in Nepalese politics. Among the many Countries America, India and china are mainly have seen on the scene in Nepalese diplomacy. It is not new of American and Indian concern but in the latest day's Chinese concern has created a new wave.

Nepal is surrounded by India in east, west and south and by China in north. So she has geopolitical relationship with India and China. And, located between two large Asian countries China and India, America wants to gain the benefit of geopolitical and strategic significant from Nepal-U.S. relationship.Directly or indirectly these three country want to keep continue their relationship with Nepal in high level to maintain their political and economical impulse. America always wants to look through Indian eyes to Nepal; and India also does not make any different idea to look Nepal rather than American interests. Now, going on federalism and abolishing the monarchy are main political issues of Nepalese political ground. On the issue of abolishing the monarchy has disputes in the country. And it is charged that America and India want to keep continue the monarchy in Nepal, so, before a month some cadres of Young communist league, a sister organization of Nepal communist Party (Maoist) had hurled stone to James F. Moriarty, the American ambassador to Nepal.

India and Nepal have a geographical nearness and open boarder. There is monopoly of India in Nepalese commercial market too. So India wants to secure her dominant role in Nepalese market. And a few decades ago India was battled and defeated with china and it has remained a bit fear to India of China. This is why Nepal is important "northern frontiers" of India. Though, China and India have improved their relationship into fair competitive commercial partner from traditional enemy.China doesn't tolerate the activities about free Tibet in Nepal which happened sometimes. And, some analyst especially leftist says that the America is trying to encircle China through Nepali territory. So, it is said that china's relationship with Nepal is also a bit more strategic on the prospective of security. Even though Chinese ambassador to Nepal has said that it is not the time of cold war and china-America relations witness a smooth and healthy development. Nowadays China also wants to buildup the formal relationship with CPN (Maoist) which is said by Chinese ambassador in a press interaction, last week, organized by Reporters club. But America and India still doubtfully look to Maoist. And it is said that the Maoist's president Prachanda will visit to China after few months.

Besides located between India and China, America has another issue in Nepal of their interest. That is doctrine issue. America always hates communist. So, the entering of Maoist into government and their open politics has been challenging to America. America has still tagged to Maoist as terrorist. The out going ambassador Moriarty often talk about Nepalese politics in different programme and scold Maoist and her sister organization YCL. India has begun to invite to Nepalese party to visit India. Nepali congress and CPN UML has already visited India. Likewise many political mission and team of different western country come to Nepal to observe and talk about politics in Nepal. And they directly talk to Nepalese prime minister too. Last time American Former President had come to Nepal and met with prime minister and leaders of political parties including Maoist president Prachanda. These influential countries envoy frequently meet to the Nepalese prime minister directly and talk about Nepalese politics.

But critics say that it is not the right system to meet prime minister directly. Professor and political analyst Dr. Lokraj Baral said, "They must go through joint secretary of foreign ministry." Critics accuse that the foreign diplomats are being over smart in Nepalese politics out of their ethics. Some critics believe that our leader themselves give the environment of such type. Bhim Bhurtel, A political analyst says that if the political leadership believes on people rather than power center the foreign concern automatically reduce. He said, "in this situation Nepal should adopt the dynamic foreign policy in spite of accusing to foreign diplomats."

Source: Ohmy News International, June 30, 2007

NEPAL: ENTER CHINA, EXIT INDIA?

N.P.Upadhyaya

Kathmandu: Gone are the days of Indian hegemony in Nepal, it appears. The self-proclaimed “big-brother”-India-now will have yet another “real big brother” in Kathmandu to counter the Indian hegemony.
If one were to believe what the freshly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Zhen Xianglin, has said to a vernacular fortnightly the other day, what appears to be for sure is that China will henceforth not tolerate any Indian hegemony and dictates imposed on this India-locked country.
Ambassador Xianglin appears to have understood the inner problems and the issues plaguing this country in details though his stay in Kathmandu has not even exceeded two months time.

However, the manner he has understood the political events currently unfolding in this country and the way he has expressed his country’s views in a firm and determined style does hint that now onwards China too would be a “player” in Nepali politics which is what Comrade Prachanda too prefers.
This means that China as a “traditional and trustworthy neighbor of Nepal” will have its own axis in Nepal that will comprise of a single country-China itself.
Judging at what the Chinese Ambassador has told to the vernacular fortnightly, what becomes abundantly clear is that China will be more interested now onwards to safeguard her own political interests in this country that are aplenty, to say the least.
The Chinese envoy assuring Nepal in a subtle manner authoritatively says that China has not yet deflected from what Marshal Chen Yi as back as in 1961 October 2 had told of Nepal.

To recall, Marshal Chen Yi during a visit to Kathmandu had said, in his own words, “China will not tolerate if there is any aggression against Nepal by any country”.
The Chinese envoy’s emphasis and reassurance to the Nepalese people that China still valued what Marshal Chen Yi said long time back must force some countries in Nepal’s neighborhood to pull their hairs.
The countries near and far dictating Nepal to do this or to do that must not have taken these fresh Chinese sentimental attachments towards Nepal in good taste.
Now what is more than clear is that China will show its presence in this country which so far remained in what has been called as a “low profile” status.
Beijing, better late than never, appears to have realized that any political disturbances in Nepal and its adjoining areas might have a profound impact upon its own under belly-Tibet autonomous region. It is perhaps these factors which prompts the Chinese envoy to suggest the Nepali establishment to sort out the political issues plaguing the Terai/Madhesh at the earliest fearing probably its impact might reach up to the bordering town of China.

However, China says, no external interference should be there while sorting out the Terai issues. This is significant in more ways than one. The message should be loud and clear to those who have been poking their nose in Nepal’s what the Ambassador says, “Internal affairs”.
The Chinese Ambassador appears more than happy with the Nepalese authorities who have assured him and his country that any anti-China activities will not be allowed to occur in the Nepali soil.
In effect, this is what China wants from Nepal and in lieu China is more than willing to contribute to the development of this country by what ever means it can. Chinese grand assurance comes once again in the form of a million dollar assurance wherein its commits itself that China will come into action the moment she concludes that Nepal’s territorial integrity and national independence were in jeopardy.
However, what is bewildering some analysts is that such similar statement both in content and nature had emanated in Kathmandu early last year when a Chinese State councilor Tang Jiaxuan-a comparatively higher authority in the Chinese state hierarchy-too had assured the then ruling regime but when it came to the crunch, the expected Chinese support was “missing”.

Look what Mr. Tang had said then, “We consistently support Nepal in its effort to safeguard sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Nepal is a sovereign country, and its internal affairs shall not be interfered with in any way by any outside forces. We believe that the Nepalese government and people have the political wisdom and capabilities to solve their own problems.
How and which factors/forces converged together and managed the ouster of the Royal regime is any body’s guess. The naked Indian interference that was visible then is not a thing that any one could presume that the Chinese authorities did not know or understand.
The Royal regime definitely had counted on Chinese support more so after the Tang’s speech made right here in Kathmandu. The Chinese silence acquired then is yet shrouded in a mystery

Should this mean that China will even now allow Indian South Block mandarins to impose their heinous dictates in an uninterrupted manner and would only come into full action or play when India infringed upon Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty? At least this much becomes visible from the Chinese Ambassador’s interview. However, surprising though it may appear to some, more so to the chagrin of the Americans, the Chinese envoy sees a friend in the Maoists. He says since they have been already a part of the interim government that enjoys people’s mandate and legitimacy so nothing could be said of the Maoists. He further says that “looking the Maoists might differ from one country to the other hinting that China does not bother what the Americans see the Maoists. Hmmm….
In a subtle manner, the Chinese envoy possesses some soft corner for the Maoists for reasons unknown to analysts here. But some intelligent brains here conclude that China would keep the Maoists close to them in order to distance the India’s all pervasive political interference in this country.

To put it in another words, China would want the Maoists to act like a deterrent against the Indian hegemony in Nepal which others have failed so far.
No wonder, some top Maoists leaders have already traveled to China in order to build conducive political atmosphere in their favor.
Reports have it that Comrade Prachanda together his son-Prakash-will be visiting Beijing some where around October-November.
This is no less disturbing news for Indian authorities.
Added reports say that one Chinese professor Wang Hoi mediated the China-Maoists friendship. Prof. Wang is considered to be a brain on South Asian affairs.
Be that as it may, with China’s forceful assertion that it would have its presence felt in this country bodes well for this India-locked country for a variety of seen and unseen reasons.

No less important is the Chinese envoy’s admission that his country was ready to supply petro-products to Nepal if properly requested.
Analysts presume the Chinese political influence, in that eventuality will be, mathematically speaking, inversely proportional to that of the self-proclaimed big-brothers’ influence in Nepal.
Not a bad news. It’s time that the South Block mandarins begin pulling their hairs! However, Indians are not that fools. They have several cards under their sleeve and countless stooges working day in day out funded by the notorious RAW-Research Analysis Wing. Which card they will use to counter the fresh Chinese enthusiastic political overtures will have to be watched and how in such an eventuality, the Chinese retort back will be no less entertaining-speaking on political terms.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, June 14, 2007

INTERVIEW WITH CHINESE AMBASSDOR ZHENG XIANGLIN

Excerpts of aninterview with His Excellency Zheng Xianglin, the newly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Nepal by Sudheer Sharma, editor of Nepal magazine.

Q. Is it only coincidence that you became the first ambassador to present credentials to the Prime Minister instead of the king? Or can we take this as a sign that China is positive about the establishment of a republic in Nepal?

Zheng Xianglin: We can say that it just happened. I was appointed as the Ambassador to Nepal when we received notice from the Nepali government that Nepal had amended the constitution. According to the interim constitution, the Prime Minister of Nepal is now the acting head of the state. So, the designated foreign Ambassadors should present letter of credentials to the Prime Minister.

Q. Where is Nepal in China's foreign policy priorities?

Zheng Xianglin: China has 14 boundary-countries and Nepal is one of them. China upholds the principles of independence, peace and self-reliance. On that basis we are willing to establish friendly diplomatic relationships with all the countries in the world.

Chinese people and the government are ready to extend harmonious cooperation and coexistence with our neighbours and to enhance understanding and friendship. We would like to become good friends and good partners with our neighbours. China and Nepal has a dispute-free political relationship. Nowadays China has achieved economic development but we will never forget our friends and our neighbours. China is yet to support Nepal and we will extend our support to the best of our capacity.

Q. How are you observing Nepal's ongoing peace process? Is Nepal entering stability?

Zheng Xianglin: From last year, we have been very glad to see that the peace process in Nepal has achieved significant developments and is now moving forward step by step. I think this process will keep going on, although encountering some difficulties.
We sincerely hope that all the parties concerned in Nepal can remain united and work together to push the peace process, to make contributions to the well being of the Nepali people as well as Nepal, the whole country.

So, are you satisfied with the ongoing peace process?

Zheng Xianglin: My stay in Nepal is not quite long but I have already communicated with the chief of UNMIN Ian Martin. I also read the report presented by the Secretary General of the UN to the Security Council about the political situation of Nepal. I think that UNMIN has made some achievements in Nepal. The Chinese side also accepts the importance of UNMIN's work here. We are also planning to send a political officer to this delegation.

Q. If the conflict escalated again in Nepal, then can China play any role to resolve it?

Zheng Xianglin: We are always working for peace and reconciliation. We sincerely hope that all the parties concerned can work on the basis of unity and compromise.

Q. Now, we are facing another type of conflict in the Terai. Some new armed groups have emerged there. How do you assess it, is it common during a transitional phase or is it an extraordinary case?

Zheng Xianglin: The Terai issue is an ethnic group issue, which has existed in Nepal for a long time. It is also a historical issue. It is purely an internal affair of Nepal. So I think the Nepali government as well as parties concerned should address this issue properly through dialogue. And I hope there should not be any foreign interference in this regard. This kind of internal issue, I think, exists in lots of countries (in transitional phases).

Q. It is believed that the Chinese government maintained a close relationship with the monarchy for a long period. Why?

Zheng Xianglin: It is totally a misconception. The Chinese government has always established very good relationships with the Nepali government and the Nepali (political) parties, of course, including the previous monarchy. The Communist Party of China has remained in frequent contact with many parties in Nepal. So, this is a quite normal relationship between countries and parties.

Q. How do you see the Maoists? The US has branded them as "terrorists", does China also think similarly?

Zheng Xianglin: The CPN Maoists have already joined the mainstream and now they are part of the interim government.

Q. My question is that, like the US, does your country also see them as terrorists even after they joined the government?

Zheng Xianglin: The Maoists have now become one part of the coalition government of eight political parties. It is a legal government and accepted by the Nepali people. I think the US also accepts this coalition government. And as for the terrorist label, I think different people have different assessments. American Ambassador Moriarty has told me that he also would like to shake hands with Prachanda.

Q. What is your relationship like with the Maoists?

Zheng Xianglin: No formal relationship.

Q. Have you met any Maoist leaders?

Zheng Xianglin: Except for my meeting with Minister for Forest and Soil Conservation Matrika Yadav to exchange opinions on how to defeat cross-border economic crimes and with the Minister for Information and Communication Krishna Bahadur Mahara during a public function, we don't have formal interactions with other Maoist leaders. We don't have a party level formal relationship.

Q. And an informal relationship?

Zheng Xianglin: As for informal interaction, I would like to tell you that the Chinese media has interviewed Prachanda. And we also have some informal encounters in some receptions.

Q. If the Maoists led the government in future, then China may recognize them?

Zheng Xianglin: You just put this up as an assumption, so it is difficult to answer.

Q. Why does China maintain a low-profile diplomatic policy in Nepal, compared to other influential countries?

Zheng Xianglin: I think it may not be correct to put it like that, low-profile. I have been quite high-profile during my more than one month stay here. Every day, I have at least five activities. I have already met a dozen governmental officials, ministers, leaders of major political parties and most of the foreign ambassadors here.
China upholds the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. We respect the choices of the people, made of the political structure of that country. I think foreigners have no right to make incorrect comments about that.

Q. But some foreign diplomats like the US and Indian Ambassadors are commenting on Nepal's internal affairs very openly. What do you think about that?

Zheng Xianglin: We have no comment on that. We uphold our own principles.

Q. Some people believe that the US is trying to encircle China through Nepali territory. What is your opinion?

Zheng Xianglin: Nowadays China-US relations witness a smooth and healthy development. We have also promoted relationships with other western countries from Europe as well as India. I am sure of the further development of relationships between China and western countries in the future. There will be further mutual understanding and mutual trust. Now is not the time of the cold war.
Q. We can see some "free Tibet" activities here. Is this really a threat to Chinese security?

Zheng Xianglin: The Nepali government has already made the sincere commitment that Nepalese territory will not be used by the Tibet separatist forces against China. We are a little bit worried about the activities done by the separatist forces here. We will work closely with the Nepali government to oppose this kind of separatist activities in Nepal against China. We hope that the Nepal government upholds its commitments. China cannot compromise with the Tibetan issue, because this is related to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. The Nepal government has understood our sensitivities quite well.

Q. Nepal is facing a shortage of petroleum products lately and we have heard that China is ready to provide petroleum products. Is it true?

Zheng Xianglin: These days we have also witnessed long queues in front of the petrol stations not far from our embassy. China is also a big petroleum consuming country. Half of the petroleum supply of China relies on importing petroleum. But nowadays our neighbour Nepal has difficulties, including in petroleum supplies, so we will of course do something.
During the meeting with Prime Minister Koirala, we talked about the supply of petroleum from China. But about this, we still need a concrete proposal and suggestions from the Nepali side. If the Nepali side can facilitate us with a concrete proposal, the Chinese side will take that into positive consideration.

QIn 1962, Marshal Chen Yi, then Deputy Premier of China, had commented that any foreign intervention in Nepal will not be tolerable for China. Does China still follow that policy or has it shifted from that?

Zheng Xianglin: No, No! Our policy has not changed. The traditional friendship between Nepal and China has lasted for a long time even till today. I am sure that this friendship will go on in the future from generation to generation.

Q. This means the Chinese government will treat the problems of the Nepali people like they treat those of the Chinese people?

Zheng Xianglin: That's the meaning. When Nepali people face difficulties and pain, we will take that as ours; especially when Nepali people face some difficulties to uphold sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any foreign intervention in Nepal will not be tolerable for China.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, June 13, 2007

Nepal-China Trade

IN ancient times there was significant volume of trade between Nepal and China, particularly Tibet the autonomous region of China. Now, however this trade is not up to an appreciable extent, and there is much more scope for boosting the trade between the two countries for their mutual benefit. In this connection a discussion was held between a Chinese delegation that is currently visiting Nepal with the representatives of Nepal Trans Himalayan Border Trade Association.

The purpose of the parleys is to manage the trade between the two countries as well as to clear up the problems that might arise while carrying out such trade, apart from creating a congenial environment that would be ideal for the enhancement of trade between the two countries. The Chinese government for its part has made it known that the government level discussions desires to further expanding and improving trade between the two neighbouring countries.

However, the governments alone are not able to further boosting the trade, and, as such, the private sector should also be actively involved so that a vibrant trade thrives that would bring in rich dividends for the people of both the countries and contribute substantially to raise the income of their peoples. For this it is found that a mechanism including the representatives of local bodies and trade representatives of the two countries should be made in an attempt to seek resolutions to problems that the traders face in Khasa. Incidentally, Khasa is a commercial hub for Nepal-China trade. Furthermore, the full potential of trade between Nepal and China could be realized if the Chinese investors were to invest in the banking and tourism sector.

China has now emerged as an economic superpower. Nepal stands to benefit were it to attract the investors from China for also such sectors as hydroelectricity that holds immense potential and with which Nepal is endowed aplenty. For the time being, trade between the two countries would be further facilitated if the visa processing for Nepalese businessmen were to be eased. Other measures that could be undertaken are to initiate trade by developing infrastructures for transits adjacent to Nepal and China. Nepal also would appreciate it were the customs duty for Nepalese agricultural products, handicrafts and food grains in the Chinese market were done away with. These are some of the measures that would revive and also contribute to the further enhancing the trade between the two friendly countries.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 20, 2007