New map stokes up old row
A day after the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government blasted the then government under CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli for not duly communicating with the international community about Nepal’s new map comprising the Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas, the main opposition CPN-UML had the government in its crosshairs.
Addressing the Lower House, Raghuji Panta, a UML lawmaker, said, “The Parliament approved the new map of Nepal unanimously. But China’s recently-issued map does not show Nepal’s pointed map (including the territories of Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura) in its neighborhood. It shows the old map.” “The Foreign Minister has flayed the previous government for ‘not communicating with the world’ about the new map,” he said. Panta went on, “With how many countries has this government communicated regarding Nepal’s new map? I demand an answer, pronto.”
Dil Kumari Rawal, another UML lawmaker, joined forces with Panta and accused both China and India of seeking to undermine Nepal’s status as a fully sovereign country.
Speaking at the National Assembly, Rawal blamed the two neighbors for disregarding Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
She was referring to India’s act of including Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani in its new political map issued in 2019 and China’s recent act of including the old map of Nepal shorn of the 400-sq km that it has been claiming as her own by presenting historic records like land ownership certificates issued to local people and the receipt of land tax from them.
Rawal expressed doubts that the omission may have occurred due to weak diplomatic steps on the part of governments vis-a-vis the new map. She urged the government to attend to this serious matter.
It may be noted that India and China signed a 40-point pact in 2015, which, among other things, envisages using Lipulek for bilateral trade, by sidelining Nepal. The then government had objected to the move, to little avail.
Successive governments have pledged to resolve the dispute with India through diplomatic means, yet they have done precious little toward dispute resolution with the thorny issue not even figuring in bilateral talks.
Execute deals inked with China
The government should chalk out agendas before Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s visit to China. Such preparations are standard for any official visit. However, the government’s main focus should be on executing the agreements inked with China in the past. We have many agreements with our northern neighbor awaiting implementation.
Additionally, the government should actively engage with the Chinese government to boost the arrival of Chinese tourists to Nepal. Bringing in more tourists is vital for the growth of Nepal’s tourism industry.
Regarding the recent alterations to China’s map, it is imperative for the government of Nepal to engage in diplomatic discussions with Chinese officials. Prior to this, the government should ensure that the international community is duly informed about Nepal’s updated map. It’s worth noting that the map issue was not taken up during the PM’s visit to India, even though it’s an important matter concerning our bilateral relationship.
The author is a former ambassador of Nepal to China
Non-alignment policy is even more relevant today
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered a debate regarding Nepal's commitment to non-alignment policy. As the world watched, Nepal voted in the United Nations’ proposal that condemned Russia's aggression, while neighboring South Asian countries, including India, chose the path of abstention.
This divergence of stance stirred criticism from foreign policy experts and communist parties, who vehemently posited that Nepal's vote in the UN resolution represented a stark deviation from its enduring non-alignment doctrine. They contended that Nepal, like several regional counterparts, should have maintained a resolute neutral position.
In recent months, a fresh discourse has taken root among foreign policy luminaries and political leaders, probing the question of whether Nepal should relinquish its non-alignment policy in light of the ever-shifting regional and global power dynamics. Yet, some proponents of this shift offer their case without specifying what should supplant the non-alignment policy.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), born in the cauldron of the 1950s and 1960s, had at its heart the notion of eschewing alignment with either of the two prevailing blocs: the democratic realm led by the United States or the communist sphere headed by the Soviet Union. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the bipolar world transitioned into a unipolar landscape under US dominion. Currently, there are 120 members that follow the non-alignment policy.
Nepal has enshrined it in its constitution of 2015. Article 51 of the constitution explicitly mandates Nepal to conduct an independent foreign policy based on the United Nations Charter, non-alignment, Panchasheel principles, international law, and world peace norms. It underscores the overarching imperative of safeguarding Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, and national interests.
Those advocating for abandoning the non-alignment policy often cite India as an example. They argue that India has embraced a multi-alignment doctrine in recent years. India's reduced emphasis on global non-alignment conferences is seen as a testament to this shift. Experts assert that India has deftly carved a path of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, all while preserving the core tenets of non-alignment.
In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, India's steadfast neutrality and ongoing engagements with both Russia and the US have underscored the nuanced nature of its foreign policy. Professor of international relations, Khadka KC, contends that even India has not categorically severed ties with non-alignment, hinting that Nepal, in its own way, has been practicing a form of multi-alignment since the 1960s, all while upholding the principles of non-alignment.
It's argued that Nepal actively pursues economic benefits from major global powers, including Russia, and, since 1960, has remained untethered to military alliances. Experts assert that the current non-alignment doctrine does not preclude Nepal from engaging with any nation to further its national interests. However, the unique geography of Nepal necessitates a cautious avoidance of taking sides in global conflicts.
Beyond Nepal's borders, the Global South at large grapples with the intricacies of non-alignment and neutrality, particularly in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite fervent lobbying by the US and its allies, many Global South nations have refrained from endorsing US sanctions on Russia. The positions of these smaller nations have triggered consternation, as they effectively curtail the impact of the sanctions on Russia’s economy.
Professor KC staunchly advocates for Nepal's continued adherence to non-alignment, affirming that it's intrinsic to Nepal's foreign policy fabric. He emphasizes that geography and evolving regional and global power dynamics underscore the primacy of Nepal's non-alignment policy. “Nepal can simultaneously reap economic benefits from major powers while remaining committed to non-alignment,” he says.
Former diplomat Dinesh Bhattarai insists that at the core of Nepal's non-alignment policy lies the art of making independent judgments without tilting toward any side, a principle perfectly aligned with Nepal's unique geographical constraints. He dismisses claims that non-alignment stifles development.
“I have heard the contention that non-alignment policy hinders our development. What I say is geography is an omnipotent factor, and taking sides offers no guaranteed path to rapid progress.”
Mriendra Bahadur Karki, executive director at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, offers a nuanced perspective. “Nepal should reinvent non-alignment to involve active engagement in global affairs while sidestepping military alliances,” he says.
Karki also defends Nepal's prudent decision to vote against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, portraying it as an embodiment of active non-alignment.
International relations analyst Gaurab Shumsher Thapa underscores that non-alignment does not entail turning a blind eye to regional or global events. “Instead, it beckons active engagement in world affairs without shackling Nepal to any military blocs.” Given Nepal's intricate geopolitical milieu, Thapa asserts that the relevance of non-alignment will likely increase rather than dwindle in the country's future.
To date, Nepal remains an ardent advocate of the non-alignment policy. In a recent ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau, Foreign Minister NP Saud reaffirmed Nepal's unwavering faith in the principle of the Non-Aligned Movement. He stressed the imperative of international cooperation within NAM, the strengthening of south-south collaboration, and the fortification of multilateralism with the United Nations at its nucleus, as a means to surmount contemporary global challenges.
Saud maintained: "As NAM members, we must address the root causes of persistent global problems, such as poverty, conflict, and violence. We must champion enduring peace through dialogue and respect for diversity while accelerating our economic development to attain the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development."
Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conversation with ApEx, contend that the ongoing debate on non-alignment falls short of mirroring the contemporary reality. In the face of external forces exerting pressure to enlist Nepal in their ranks, they say the most prudent course for Nepal would be to remain steadfast on its non-alignment commitment.
They firmly assert that Nepal, in view of its unique position, cannot afford to antagonize any nation by picking sides. Critics of non-alignment, they argue, have yet to furnish a coherent alternative.
Has Nepal duly apprised the world of its new map?
In May, 2020, Nepal’s Parliament unanimously issued a new political map showing Kalapani, Limpiyahura and Lipulekh as Nepali territories. All political parties supported the initiative of the then government under CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli.
However, it appears that the then government did not follow the due process to make the new map acceptable to the international community, including the neighbors—India and China. The government should have informed the United Nations, Google and other international communities, but it didn’t, in all likelihood. The Department of Survey printed the English version of the map, but it was not circulated to the international community.
Speaking at a program on Sunday, Foreign Minister Narayan Prakash Saud said, “We have not officially communicated with the international community about the new map, ministers of the previous government are claiming that they have informed the international community but I have no record of such communication taking place.”
On 28 Aug 2023, China published its ‘standard map’, which did not show the Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas inside Nepal.
Amid this controversy, a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reads, “Nepal stands firm and clear on its political and administrative map that the Parliament unanimously approved in 2020. The Government of Nepal unequivocally believes that our neighbors as well as the international community must respect
this map.”
According to the ministry, Nepal remains committed to resolving the boundary matters through dialogues and diplomacy.
Meanwhile, the International Relations Committee of the Parliament is planning to take the foreign ministry to task regarding its take on the map controversy.
“There are conflicting claims from the then and current ministers about the map, so we are preparing to seek a clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” said Raj Kishor Yadav, the committee chair
