Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 08/07/2007

I will go to the jungle for justice, and the rain will be my drink.” Such words, echoing an old Chinese folk ballad, have been forgotten by foreign-policy-makers in Beijing when trying to understand their neighbours’ political instability. China may now need to relearn some of its own revolutionary history and culture – the hard way.

Nepali Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is planning to visit Beijing this month, but final arrangements remain undecided. Even Nepal’s Maoist chairman and supreme commander, Pushpa Kamal Dahal – known by his nom de guerre of Prachanda – has expressed hopes that China will receive Mr Koirala and finally take an interest in Nepal’s political impasse.

Does China care? Its leaders promote a foreign policy that is servile to the Group of Eight industrialised nations, while looking down on neighbouring, poorer multi-ethnic countries. But these are countries whose political stability could assure, or possibly break, China’s national security.

At this crucial time, when Nepal’s coalition government is at a crossroads – either moving towards a constitutional assembly or disintegrating into internecine conflict – the country needs China’s support. So, if Mr Koirala visits Beijing and gets the usual rhetoric and fancy banquets in over-lit, empty halls, it will mean nothing.

India understands this. Beijing’s foreign-policy approach to neighbouring states pales when compared with that of India. For example, India’s ambassador to Nepal is usually of ministerial, or at least vice-ministerial, rank. China’s ambassador is a department, or sometimes division, head. The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s understanding of politics in neighbouring states is shockingly immature compared with that of South Asian nations.

If Nepal’s November 22 election goes ahead, the nationalist Congress party – which is backed by the US and India – may not achieve a controlling 50 per cent of the vote. In this situation, the Maoists would most likely become the thirdlargest force within the government. This would be unpalatable to both Washington and New Delhi, so they may try to prevent the election.

While officials insist the election must be held, informed sources within the country believe that there is very little chance of this happening. The likely scenario, they say, is a collapse of the government, derailing election hopes. Last week, thousands of Maoists descended on Kathmandu for their Central Committee meeting. Prachanda delivered a 36-page speech setting out two demands: declare the country a republic; and conduct elections under a fully proportional representation system.

Prachanda has stated that the Maoists will not return to armed conflict. However, there are fears that they may have no choice other than to go back to warfare. Indeed, this may be unavoidable if Prachanda’s demands are ignored and the election is postponed. This would compel the Maoists to take to Kathmandu’s streets in protest, possibly leading to rioting. This would then force the country’s army – under the US-backed Congress party – to come out to crush the popular revolt.

Such a scenario would certainly suit White House policy. US President George W. Bush’s administration has already labeled the Maoists “terrorists”. Under the above scenario, expect an Iraqstyle “coalition of the willing” to be formed under US command, with the bulk of the force made up of Indian soldiers. Who would control Nepal, and the Tibet border area, then?

An editorial by leftist writer Rajendra Maharjan in Gorkhapatra, a Nepali-government-owned newspaper, accusing the US of repeating in Nepal 60 years of policies of intervention: just think of Indochina, Central Asia, South and Central America, and the Middle East. Such criticism might be dismissed as echoing other popular views in the developing world. However, specific reference was made to a policy of encircling China by manipulating the politics of bordering countries.

Does that sound implausible? The new US embassy under construction in Kathmandu can accommodate 2,200 personnel. On average, G8 nations in the capital have between 20 and 30 embassy staff. So, perhaps bigger plans are being considered.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top