NEW DELHI: No diplomat can ignore the call of duty, which is why it is de rigueur for Asean diplomats to don colourful batik shirts if Indonesia is hosting an event; or for others to wear the Arab headdress if the host happens to be from the Arab world. In other words, it’s good optics and also good diplomacy.
So no eyebrows were raised last year when China’s envoy to Nepal Ms. Hou Yanqi, danced at an event in Kathmandu in traditional Nepali gear as part of International Women’s Day celebrations. But there was a buzz of disapproval when she posted pictures of herself on Twitter, striking model-like poses at the ancient Patan Durbar Square. It’s not that people didn’t like her pictures or the caption alongside which read, “True beauty always touches the deep heart. Beautiful Nepal with history, diversity and nature deserves a visit. Wish #VisitNepal2020 successful!”
Her problem was she tagged Yogesh Bhattarai, Nepal’s minister for culture and tourism, in the tweet. Was it appropriate for a diplomat to tag the minister of the host country where she is posted, some asked. But this was minor compared to what was to follow. In February, Nepal’s leading English daily The Kathmandu Post reproduced an opinion piece from The Korea Herald titled ‘China’s secrecy has made coronavirus crisis much worse’. It was written by former US diplomat Ivo Dalder and then the fat was in the proverbial fire.
The Chinese embassy responded with a long statement the following day, excoriating the newspaper for having “published an article which, with a picture of malicious intention, deliberately smeared the efforts of the Chinese government and people…. We hereby express our strong dissatisfaction and firm protest to it” (sic). It didn’t spare the then editor-in-chief of The Kathmandu Post, Anup Kaphle either, accusing him of always being biased and “becoming a parrot of some anti-China forces…” This wasn’t all. The embassy held out a veiled threat to the newspaper, saying it “reserves the right of further action.”
The embassy’s ballistic response did not go down well with the media in Nepal, drawing widespread condemnation. The Kathmandu Post made known its concern in an editorial which ran thus: “The undiplomatic—and frankly menacing—manner in which the Chinese embassy made its objections known is condemnable.”
It then went on to warn the Nepali government about its ‘open door’ policy vis a vis Chinese aid and investment. “Evidence from around the world shows that Chinese aid too comes with strings attached. Nepal welcomes Chinese assistance, but Nepal, as a democracy, should be wary of China’s politics.”
More pointedly, the editorial underscored the threat the embassy had issued. “ The Chinese embassy’s statement, ultimately, is not just about the Post, or its Editor-in-Chief. It is a rebuke to not bite the hand that feeds. It is about an ostensibly friendly neighbour testing the waters to see if Nepalis and Nepali society will tolerate this kind of intrusion into values that Nepal holds sacrosanct. If Nepal is to keep its sovereignty, it needs to ensure that no foreign nation, no matter how powerful, gets to dictate what principles Nepalis uphold.”
The Post was voicing a growing concern among many Nepalis about increasing Chinese inroads including in the country’s polity. It also reflected concern over China’s behaviour with its smaller Southeast Asian neighbours, its record of “debt diplomacy” in Africa and the larger implications. This record is of course denied by China’s diplomats. Writing in The Indian Express newspaper some months ago, China’s Ambassador to India Sun Weidong held out the singular assurance: “China will become strong and this is something that is bound to happen. But it is not necessary that a stronger country is bound to follow the beaten path of seeking hegemony, posing a so-called threat to other countries.”
But what is happening in Nepal is blatant meddling in its internal affairs, and worse still, in the affairs of the Nepal Communist Party. Ambassador Hou Yanqi has been a prominent player in efforts to defuse the power struggle at the very top and strengthen the hands of the pro-China Prime Minister K.P.Sharma Oli.
And last week, The Post reported that Yanqi met foreign secretary Shankar Das Bairagi to discuss the Lipulekh territorial dispute. The meeting happened hours before Indian army chief General M.M.Naravane hinted that Beijing was behind Nepal’s protests over the new link road India has constructed to the Lipulekh Pass.
A retired Indian diplomat who served in Kathmandu and has seen Beijing’s influence in Nepal grow said: “She indulged in shuttle diplomacy which was very public and very visible. She was running around making sure nothing went wrong and was strongly supporting Oli who has built a bridge with Beijing.”
In his view, “Now, China has a gloves off approach and is willing to do anything to protect its interest in Nepal. It’s a new normal,” he said from the time when they had a more hands off approach.
In Kathmandu it’s an open secret that the Chinese played a crucial role in uniting Oli’s Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) and the Maoists led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, to form the NCP. They could not however bring together the other splinter Left parties.
The Indian diplomat recalled what Chairman Mao Zedong had once said about Tibet being the palm of China, with Ladakh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh comprising the five fingers. to drive home the point that Chinese interests in these regions have existed for long. The inroads have grown deeper and at a faster pace under the China-leaning Oli, he says noting that “China is plying Nepal with a lot of money in the shape of projects.” Many of these are connectivity projects that are part of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative.
Nepal in recent years has been embracing these projects because of China’s readiness to fund them, disregarding warnings of falling into debt. There are also whispers of kickbacks being paid to politicians for awarding contracts to Chinese firms. “India executes projects. China is looking after individuals,” is how the retired diplomat put it.
President Xi told his Nepali hosts last year that China’s investments in Nepal were over $300 million while two-way trade was nearly $1.1 billion. “They have deep pockets so we cannot check their ingress,” the diplomat admitted. But there is a backlash against China brewing worldwide, partly as a result of its behaviour during the coronavirus, and partly because of the high levels of debt incurred by countries across Asia and Africa. This could turn the tide against Beijing, but that time may not be now.
[/vc_column][/vc_row][/tdc_zone]
