Mr Dixit’s article can be summarized as: China only looks for its interests in Nepal and it is plotting with the Maoists to influence the future course of Nepali politics and the political system. And that the willingness of a Chinese NGO Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and Exchange Foundation (APECEF) to invest US$3 billion is not in our national interests. Mr Dixit links the issue of Lumbini with China´s geopolitical strategy and warns us against letting the Chinese invest there and fears the shady transfer of money. For all intent and purpose, the article opposes any Chinese investment there. I argue that Mr Dixit´s fears are overblown and in his effort to read between the lines, he has missed the obvious.
Does China want Nepal to become a dictatorship under the leadership of Maoists for authoritarian stability as Mr Dixit argues? Given what we know so far, it seems implausible.
The Chinese clearly realize that Maoists’ anti-India rhetoric results from its failure to gain India´s support in its bid to power. Furthermore, the fact is not lost on the Chinese that the former rebels had India´s support during the insurgency. It appears that Chinese citizens too seem to view the Maoists with skepticism. For example, if one is to search in Chinese search engines like Baidu.com or Sina.com for China-Nepal-India, one comes across an article in Chinese, "Over estimating one´s strength: India´s competition with China for influence in South Asia" (Buziliangli: Yindu yao he Zhongguo zhengduo nanya shili fanwei). The article, which first appeared in Shanghai Translation Newspaper (Shanghai Yi Bao) on February 1, 2007, clearly warns the Chinese against trusting the Nepali Maoists. This article seems quite popular among the Chinese netizens as it has been copied in many blogs and discussion forums, and can be accessed at http://tc.wangchao.net.cn/bbs/detail_842452.html, among other sites.
In a country where the concept of freedom of expression is still alien, the article with tall claims such as Indians trained the Maoists and supplied them with a thick manual on how to manipulate the press, use elections to ones advantage and stage protests, could very well be a reflection of how the Chinese leadership views the Nepali Maoists. The tall unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed outright, but appearance of an article like this in a Shanghai newspaper that claims intellectuals, and college and high school students as its customers, and its remarkable survival for more than 4 years after its first appearance in the face of strict Chinese web censors are, I believe, enough reasons to not to take this piece lightly.
There is no denying to the fact that after the fall of monarchy, the Chinese are looking for a reliable partner in Nepal to make sure that Nepal does not become a safe haven for anti-China activists. However, at the same time, they are aware that in Nepal their search for a reliable partner is quite difficult owing to various reasons. Their strategy seems to be guided by an old Chinese adage "don´t appear too hostile, don´t appear too friendly" while dealing with Nepal´s political parties. Otherwise, how are we to understand Chinese ambassador´s regular one-on-one meetings with the leaders of almost all political parties of Nepal? The Chinese have made it clear that for them, it does not matter whether the parties are pro-India or pro-America, as long as they acknowledge China´s primary interests in Nepal, ie its security interests.
On Lumbini, Mr Dixit is right in stating that the recent proposal of APECEF to invest $3 billion is driven by China´s own interests, however, I find his interpretation of Chinese interests as geostrategic and/or economic a bit farfetched. Similarly, the fear that the Chinese plans could be against the master plan developed in the 1970s too is unfounded. The Chinese government backed organization (if it really invests there given conflicting reports about the organization and the whole investment plan in Nepali media these days) is more interested in constructing hotels, roads and an international airport if it is allowed to invest, and not concern itself with the development of the garden. Since Mr Kenzo Tange´s master plan is limited to the development of the garden only, the actual birthplace of the Buddha, it is hard to see how building hotels and roads outside the garden is against the master plan and as such, there is no reason to be suspicious of China investment and technology promotion office and the APECEF signing an agreement with the United Nations Industrial Development Office (UNIDO) on raising investment of $3 billion rather than with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO is only concerned with the development and protection of the garden, not the whole of Lumbini, the same way it is concerned only with the Bhaktapur Durbar Square, not the whole of Bhaktapur city.
Since the whole investment idea is still being worked on, there´s no reason to fear "shady" transfer of money at this point of time. When the idea is mature enough and the Chinese firm or the government officially requests our government for permission to invest, then, we have every reason to be confident that there would be no shady transfer of money. What we have to fear is our greedy leaders demanding their share from the $3 billion earmarked for Lumbini´s development.
Instead of viewing Chinese willingness to invest in Lumbini primarily in terms of superpower rivalry as Mr Dixit has, I believe there is another way of looking at China´s interests there.
China, thanks to its newfound wealth and superpower status, now wants to invest in developing its soft power abroad—a point made clear by the Chinese President Hu Jintao in his recent speech to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese investment in the Buddha´s birthplace will not only absolve the Communist Party of earlier campaigns against religion and the systematic destruction of places of worship in many places including Tibet from 1949 to 1978, it will also promote a new image of China that no longer believes in the Marxist maxim of religion as the opiate of the masses.
Similarly, it can also be argued that since Lumbini is seeing an increase in the tourists from East and South East Asian nations (including the Chinese renegade province of Taiwan), investment there would only help to do away with the stereotypical perception in those countries of Chinese state as intolerant to religion and religious freedom. China-Nepal Cooperation written in English and Chinese in whatever structures that are built from the proposed $3 billion dollars is a big advertising opportunity for China to boost its soft power all over the world in general, and the Buddhist world of East and South East Asia in particular. For us, better infrastructures mean more tourists, which in turn would result in more economic opportunities for the locals. Hence, it is a win-win situation for both sides.
Foreign policies, as any student of international relations can tell, are by nature tailored to foster the country´s interests abroad, and the Chinese policy too is to maximize its interests, the same way Indian, American or Norwegian policies on Nepal are tailored to foster their interests. It is up to us to make sure that their interests in Nepal do not clash with our national interests. Certainly, the Chinese cannot be singled out for trying to maximize their national interests in Nepal and demonized for being selfish. Therefore, I believe, it makes more sense to view China as a normal country, than viewing it in terms of good and evil, as either approach only clouds our judgment of it and its actions.
Related story
Save Lumbini Struggle Committee calls for mobilizing income gen...
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
