Nepal should play the role of a peacemaker
Just a few days ago, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Damodardas Modi, made a very important announcement. Delivering a speech in Laddakh, he 'announced' that the age of expansionism is over.
Wow! Such a declaration, echoing across the South Asian subcontinent and beyond, is no less than music for countries like Nepal, who have been bearing with a virulent strain of expansionism that even sneaks into the corridors of power and even creeps into the bedrooms of very senior political leaders presiding over apex leadership positions of the country.
So, right after this announcement, yours truly just did a cursory check to know whether this announcement had knocked down some of the powerful symbols of expansionism.
Despite the powerful declaration, yours truly found that the symbols of expansionism were still there, standing 'proudly' as ever in our very bosoms.
Despite the powerful declaration, yours truly found that those symbols were still there, standing 'proudly' as ever as a mark of expansionism in our very bosoms.
Yours truly found that the Kalapani-Lipulek-Limpiadhura region was still under foreign occupation with camps and roads further strengthening the stranglehold against a land-linked country by denying it a vital strategic pass as well as an all-weather trade route with the northern neighbour. You know, alternative trade routes are quite important for the very survival of this country, given that usual routes serve a dual purpose of allowing one neighbour to monopolise trade with Nepal and acting as slipknots if it becomes belligerent.
Despite the declaration, regulatory structures and high-elevation roads robbing Nepal of her water resources were standing as arrogantly as ever.
And micromanagement of our internal affairs was rife as ever, especially after the government move of including the Kalapani-Lipulek-Limpiadhura region into the political map of Nepal and the sovereign Parliament's historic act of endorsing the move. This meddling was so deep and shameful that the Prime Minister presiding over a very unstable, corruption and misrule-plagued system had to declare that that neighbour (which never gets tired of projecting herself as the world's largest democracy) was trying to topple his popularly-elected government, that meetings were taking place in different hotels for the same.
Apparently, this remark came at a time when retired hawkish generals and hawkish wonks were going berserk -- they often give an impression as if this small country is at war with the hyper-power that seems to be feeling that the world is not enough to accommodate her extraterritorial ambitions -- demanding the use of 'assets' in Nepal to topple an elected government over her alleged pro-China tilt.
This war-mongering, this posturing is quite similar to the Laddakh announcement of Narendra Modi. From Laddakh, Modi, chest-thumping or otherwise, was sounding to Beijing that the age of Chinese strain of expansionism was over, given that the sole global superpower and her allies in Australasia were banding together to keep in check the extraterritorial ambitions of the Middle Kingdom.
As for small countries like Nepal, this competition for dominance is not at all welcome. Amid deepening meddling on the part of the dear neighbour and her allies, Chinese involvement in internal affairs of our country has also deepened and this is not an encouraging development. Who knows? Pretty soon, the northern neighbour may also want to micromanage affairs in Nepal, just like the dear neighbour.
Of late, Chinese involvement in our internal affairs has also deepened. This is not an encouraging development
This is not what we want.
All this birthplace of the Shakyamuni Buddha, this land of different saints and deities, this spiritual abode of divinities and humanity, this seat of ancient civilisation wants is peace with herself and the rest of the world. All it wants is a global order that is just, a world order that enables small countries to hold their heads high, a world order that does not pose perennial existential threats to them, especially in view of the fact that giants have devoured smaller and weaker states under one pretext or the other.
Some of the very prominent countries had refused to endorse the Zone of Peace proposal. Their refusal is quite telling
At this point, it will perhaps be timely to state the importance of the Zone of Peace proposal that King Birendra floated to the world during his coronation in 1975. That proposal, yours truly feels, was meant to ensure that Nepal does not become a victim of an unjust world order and vanish from the world. By 1990, more than 130 countries had endorsed that proposal, while some of the very prominent countries had refused to do so. Their refusal is quite telling.
Nepal is in a unique position when it comes to deescalating tensions in the neighbourhood that may end up destabilising the whole of Asia, to say the least. We are not only the neighbours of neighbourhood giants that are aspiring to become global superpowers in their own rights but we also enjoy cordial relations with the reigning superpower and her allies. Rather than taking sides in this conflict situation, our leaders, as representatives of one of the founding members of the Non-aligned Movement and a country that contributes troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions worldwide, should be able to use their imagination, diplomatic acumen and strive to bring peace in the neighbourhood and beyond instead of pushing the country into a vortex of conflict.
The UN should start playing some serious role in deescalation instead of acting as a lackey of the P5 countries
The UN should also grow up and start playing some serious role in deescalation instead of acting as a lackey of the P5 countries. Forget about adding members to the Security Council. Rather, how about ending this veto-based system (regardless of their size and clout, all countries are equal in terms of sovereignty, aren't they?) as it seems to be promoting the rise of regional and global goons, and creating a system that is just for smaller, weaker, politically-unstable and climate vulnerable countries?
If it fails to maintain world peace, if it fails to protect the interests of marginalised countries at the expense of some dominant countries to which it seems beholden to, what good will it do to the rest of the world? And who will shed tears if it becomes another League of Nations?
- Devendra Gautam
Comments
Post a Comment