[I then related the bearing of that verity to
its natural corollary - "That an open border between a small state, both
in terms of population and size, with another that dwarfs it on both counts, is
a ticking time bomb for the disadvantaged one" and, then going on to
question, "Can one truly assert that tiny Nepal can remain secure and
sovereign for all time to come, sharing an open border with gargantuan India with
an exploding population?"]
By M. R. Josse*
While asked the other day what impact the
installation of Donald Trump as president of the United States would have, I had
replied: it will depend very largely on his policy towards China, which would
substantially influence America's relations with Nepal's other neighbour,
India.
Before venturing any further I do wish to
remind readers of the essence of the maiden piece in my current 'geopolitically
speaking' series. Therein, in early June last year, when practically no one
expected Trump to succeed in his presidential electoral bid, yours truly
recommended heeding the cogent "geopolitical home truths" he had been
espousing during his electoral campaign.
Home-truths
In the shortlist of such verities I included
his unflagging quest to end illegal immigration into the United States, based
on the unimpeachable geopolitical truism that "No state can be secure with
insecure borders. This applies equally to the United States, Russia, China,
India - or Nepal."
I then related the bearing of that verity to
its natural corollary - "That an open border between a small state, both
in terms of population and size, with another that dwarfs it on both counts, is
a ticking time bomb for the disadvantaged one" and, then going on to
question, "Can one truly assert that tiny Nepal can remain secure and
sovereign for all time to come, sharing an open border with gargantuan India
with an exploding population?"
The other key geopolitical reality that Trump
continually flogged was the undeniable nexus between an unfettered flood of
refugees/immigrants into a country and is deleterious impact on national
security. Though Trump was constantly berated for speaking out bluntly about
the danger to America's national security from influx of radical Islamic
jihadists, several horrific acts of terrorism within the United States, and,
even more horrendously in Europe, has proven beyond doubt that he was not as
hare-brained as charged by those pandering to political correctness, at all
costs.
Finally, I made the case that Trump's
overarching policy theme - putting the country first - makes eminent sense for
a Nepal where her loktantrik (democratic) politicos consistently and constantly frame
policies that confuse India's interest with Nepal's core national principles.
Such an uncommon coincidence of interests can happen only if Nepal and India
are one and the same country!
US
and China
To come, now, more directly to this column's
core - Sino-America relations in the Trump era - all knowledgeable persons have
come to appreciate that while China-America ties constitute the most important
bilateral relationship in the world today there is, as of this writing, no
unassailable indication which way the American foreign/security policy cat will
jump.
Will a Trump administration - top-heavy with
generals - decide to 'take on' China, not only in the domain of international
trade and related areas but perhaps also attempt to overturn the long-established
American endorsement of Beijing's One China policy, not to mention frontally
challenging China with regard to her claims with respect to the South China
Sea? At this point, we simply do not know, for sure: while there have been
ample grounds suggesting that a more muscular China policy may be on the cards
(as has been discussed here recently), Trump has also sent out positive
feelers, including naming a well-known former US Governor and friend of Chinese
President Xi Jinping as his ambassador to China.
There are, moreover, at least two other
possibilities to consider: one, that America needs China's active cooperation
in order to 'tackle' the sensitive issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons
programme, with Pyongyang presently reportedly on the cusp of testing a
nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of reaching the United States mainland; and two,
that all the strident signaling on China policy from Trump Towers until just
recently is part of what in Trump's mind constitutes the opening gambit in a
long and complex negotiation process between Washington and Beijing over a
whole gamut of trade and interconnected issues.
Though, before long, one can assume that the
specific contours of America's new foreign/security policy vis-à-vis China will
be unveiled, there is the possibility - given Trump's 'America first' mantra
and many pronouncements favoring less foreign interventions - that a modus
vivendi will be hammered out, so that the basic, strategic interests of the two
superpowers do not collide headlong.
What lends not a little credibility to the
just-painted scenario are (a) that China and the United States do not have any
territorial disputes between themselves; and (b) that the Pacific Ocean is
large enough to cater to the basic national or strategic interests of both.
However, despite what has just be stated, if
the Trump administration chooses to challenge China on the South China Sea or
Taiwan, all hell will break loose.
In that case, one does not need to be a
geopolitical mastermind to predict that (a) America and India, among others,
will forge perhaps even closer strategic ties than obtained during the bromance
between President Barack Obama and India Prime Minister Narendra Modi; and (b)
that India's pressure on China, especially in Tibet through Nepal, will rise
exponentially and perhaps even brazenly.
Uncertain
To be sure, in those hypothetical
circumstances, China will not continue on her current wait-and-watch policy
vis-à-vis Nepal; if Beijing's sense of encirclement along her soft underbelly
rises to above its threshold of patience and restraint, I would not be
surprised if we were to witness a preemptive Chinese military intervention in
Nepal.
What is deserving of our focused attention in
the above context is that ever since Trump's victory Modi's India has been
remarkably quiescent. To my mind, that bespeaks of New Delhi's uncertainty
about Trump's foreign/security policy, particularly as it affects India and
China. Indeed, the key to understanding such an uncharacteristically silent
stance would seem to lie in Modi's reckless, all-out support for Obama and
Hillary Clinton, even after the American presidential election cycle had begun.
To cut a long story short, that summarizes
what the 'Trump effect' Nepal could be!
* The author is former Chief Editor of Nepal's only (in the 80's) broadsheet English daily - The Rising Nepal from Kathmandu.
* The author is former Chief Editor of Nepal's only (in the 80's) broadsheet English daily - The Rising Nepal from Kathmandu.
***
Comment(s)
----------
Forwarded message ----------
From:
Ram B Chherti <rambchhetri@hotmail.com>
Date:
Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:49 PM
Great
foresight and quite a deep analysis. Hope the leaders read and heed, and make
contingency plans as Tito had, or some other far smaller countries including
our own during grave crises.
The
way things are moving on - one wonders whether it makes any difference to most
of the Nepalese inside and outside the country if the apathy and indifference
are any indications to go by.
A
most dangerous trend of self-centered outlook hitherto unknown in the annals of
Nepal's history.
Ram
B. Chhetri,
Virginia,
USA.
*
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tilak Shrestha
<tilakbs@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:31 PM
India is pulled by two geo-political
gravities 'BRICS' and 'EU-USA.' They
pose challenge to India, how to balance them or opt either of one. Each
scenario poses complex equations for India, and resultant fallouts for Nepal
also.
For now, the best bet for Nepal is to be a
normal nation with good relations with all, especially neighbors - India and
China. As a normal nation, we need to:
1.
teach
our younger generation pride in our heritage and diverse cultures,
2.
diversify
our trade and transit options,
3.
invite
and make our system more hospitable for domestic and foreign investments,
4.
no
nonsense approach to corruption and political threats,
5.
border
control similar to between US and Canada
6.
solving
major political issues through referendum, not through threats
7.
recognize
that we are subject to aggressions of two religions - Maoism and Christianity
8.
let
Indian and Chinese trains come to Lumbini, the birth place of Buddha.
Let pilgrims from all over the world,
especially India and China, meet there and talk peace and harmony.
I am very optimistic. Being economically weaker also has
certain advantages. You do not miss what you never had, and can survive on so
little. Remember, the earthquake and Indian blockade? We survived and still
friends with India. These days of internet and smartphones, older mindsets
will not work. For us it is only to go ahead.
Tilak Shrestha, PhD
Huntsville, Alabama, USA