Submit your Article

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE
I may be wrong

When I broke the news about the impending arrival of Chinese President Xi Jinping a few months before his Kathmandu touchdown, the ‘revelation’ was mostly greeted with skepticism. Where were the preparations to welcome one of the world’s strongest leaders? How was it that only I knew? For me, it was a simple case of a trusted source in Beijing passing the information. But did I really ‘know’ Xi was coming? Of course not. There could have been legions of reasons why his trip would have been postponed or even cancelled—in which case, many would have greeted my prognosis with derision.

Then I wrote of how, if he could somehow excuse himself from Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could also come to Nepal. Of late the strategic salience of Nepal for the Americans has increased by leaps and bounds. Given how active the Chinese have been here, an acquaintance from foreign ministry recently quipped, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump himself makes the trip.” Then I said Narendra Modi could travel to Kath­mandu, hot on the heels of Xi, for predictable reasons. I could be wrong on both counts.

It’s hard to forecast how even your closest friend or family member will behave tomorrow. In international relations, we are talking about the behavior of entire states, if the concept of ‘state behavior’ makes sense at all. Francis Fukuyama famously predicted the ‘end of history’ and the global dom­ination of liberal democracies. Nearly three decades on, Fukuyama maintains he was not entirely wrong: it will just take a little longer for the total triumph of the liberal order to be apparent.

But in a recent Freakonomics podcast, he confessed to being wrong about something else: the Iraq war. Fukuyama had initially supported the 2003 invasion, but when no weap­ons of mass destruction turned up, and Fukuyama learned that the US had no exit plan, he withdrew his support. For admitting he was wrong, the ‘neo-conservative’ Fukuyama was lambasted by friends (who accused him of selling out to the left) and foes (who charged him with feigning repentance with blood on his hands) alike.

Again, it’s hard to predict or even make educated guesses about the future trajectory of a country, much less the world, as Fukuyama was trying with his ‘end of history’ thesis. With so many competing actors and interests involved, you won­der how anyone can ever get things right in diplomacy. Or if all those commentaries and essays and books on Interna­tional Relations are any worthy. Professor of political science and the foremost authority on forecasting, Philip Tetlock, famously found that in soft sciences like economics and political science, the prognostications of experts are as good as those of dart-throwing monkeys.

He advises humility and reliance on multiple, preferably contradictory, sources to improve the precision of your analysis. And, like Fukuyama, the readiness to admit you were wrong. Easier said in a world full of Facebook and Twitter silos

There has always been a kind of curious association between Nepali communists and members of the Workers Party of Korea, North Korea’s ‘eternal’ ruling party. While Nepali com­munists derided South Korea for coming under the influence of the capitalist Americans, the North Koreans were seen as bravely fighting the imperialists with the help of communist China. This fascination with the brand of North Korean communism endures.

The farther on the left a polit­ical party in Nepal, the greater its admiration for “Eternal Presi­dent of the Republic” Kim Il-Sung and his descendants. This is why Maoist leaders like Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Ram Bahadur Thapa were absolutely fascinated by how North Korea has managed to retain its sovereignty and model of govern­ment against all odds. But there is perhaps no communist outfit in Nepal that has not had a soft spot for the North Korean regime.

Only now has unrelenting Amer­ican pressure to enforce UN sanc­tions against Pyongyang distanced them from their North Korean com­rades. In the past few months, most North Korean businesses in Nepal have been shut down and the work­ers there repatriated. The UN in Nepal had long expressed worry that the North Korean business­es here were sponsoring Pyong­yang’s nuclear weapons develop­ment program. The communist government in Kathmandu ignored their concern. Then the Americans started getting serious. As their pressure mounted, the govern­ment had no option but to crack down on North Korean activities on Nepali soil.

But the trillion Won question is: Is this a temporary lull in North Korean activities in Nepal, only for show, or is the government here determined to keep them out for good this time around?

Ditching commie bonhomie, government cracks down on North Korean investments

All businesses with North Korean investment are being closed down. The government had issued an ultimatum for North Koreans to return home by December 20. The North Koreans had investments in two IT companies, some restaurants, and a hospital in Nepal

Nepal government is finally closing down all businesses in Nepal with North Korean investments. The United Nations, often in concert with the American Embassy in Kathmandu, had been exerting constant pressure on Nepal to enforce its sanctions on North Korea. The latest government move is the culmination of this pressure.

The North Korean workers have now started returning home. In fact, most of them have already left Nepal. For those still here, the government has issued a Decem­ber 20 deadline to shut down businesses and head home. The North Koreans had invest­ments in two IT companies, some restaurants, and a hospi­tal in Nepal.

Nepali citizens have bought the Ne-Koryo Hos­pital in Damauli in the dis­trict of Tanahun. The North Korean doctors and investors there have already left Damauli. Several restaurants in Kathman­du—Pyongyang Arirang, Minaj, Himalayan Soje, Botonggang— have closed down and many of their workers have gone back home as well.

Nine North Koreans associat­ed with Botonggang restaurant, located on the third floor of the Rising Mall in Durbar Marg, are yet to return home; the rest of them left Nepal on November 24.

The restaurant closed down on November 21. An immigration department team had inspected it at 9 pm the previous night and had asked the North Koreans to shut down the business. The two sides had had a brief argument, following which the North Kore­ans had agreed to comply with the immigration department’s instruc­tion. When the immigration team returned to Botonggang around noon the following day (Novem­ber 21) for a second inspection, the restaurant was still doing business. The immigration officials issued a final warning, and the North Kore­ans closed the restaurant down that very day.

Following the closure, North Kore­an ambassador to Nepal, Jo Young Men, paid a visit to the immigra­tion department and asked General Director Ishwor Raj Poudel not to revoke the visas of the North Korean workers and investors of Botong­gang. Poudel said he could not hon­or the request, citing UN sanctions on North Korea.

“All things North Koreans have been shut down,” Poudel told APEX. “No new visas have been issued to North Korean nationals. Nor will we issue them in the future.”

Commie comradeship crumbles

Earlier, the government and senior leaders of the ruling Nepal Communist Party were positive about North Korean investments in Nepal. PM KP Sharma Oli, NCP Co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali, former Minister for industry, commerce and sup­plies Matrika Yadav, among many other NCP leaders, had been pro­viding political protection to North Korean businesses. They simply ignored the UN sanctions and the US pressure on the Nepal govern­ment to enforce them. The reason, apparently, was that North Korea is a communist state.

But in a surprising U-turn, the gov­ernment recently changed its stance on North Korean investments. Many found this government about-face hard to believe. It was later revealed that the government and top NCP leaders were forced to relent in the face of strong warnings from the UN and continuous pressure from the US Embassy in Kathmandu.

In fact, in six past months, the prime minister, the home minister and the foreign minister had even refused to see the North Korean ambassador. Senior leader Mad­hav Kumar Nepal, who had been to North Korea multiple times, also stopped providing support. Subse­quently, all North Korean businesses in Nepal were forced to close down.

American twist

In addition to the UN warnings, the US Embassy in Kathmandu seemed to have played an import­ant role in closing down North Korean businesses in Nepal. The UN office in Nepal did not appear to be actively involved in persuading the government to enforce sanctions on North Korea. Its action seemed to be limited to dispatching letters to the government. The role of the US Embassy in Nepal, on the other hand, appeared prominent. Embassy officials, both directly and indirectly, kept piling pressure on the government to put an end to North Korean investments in Nepal. To that end, the US Embassy received support from other embas­sies in Kathmandu, notably those of Japan, South Korea and some European countries.

Two weeks ago, the US Embassy had held an informal briefing on North Korean investments in Nepal, where it invited reporters who cover foreign affairs. The event discussed possible threats to Nepal’s interna­tional reputation as a result of the North Korean investments. Ameri­can officials said encouraging North Korean investments could tarnish Nepal’s image among the interna­tional community and weaken its presence in the UN. They also argued that North Korea’s sour relations with its neighbors could pose threats to Nepalis in the region, particularly 80,000 of them in Japan and 70,000 in South Korea.

Moreover, they contended, Nepali leaders had nothing to gain by main­taining cordial relations with North Korea, except some opportunities to visit the country. North Korea, on the other hand, has been trying to build a good global image by citing its amicable relations with Nepal.

Ties with Kathmandu have helped Pyongyang to exploit Nepal’s resources and invest here. North Koreans remit part of the profits from such investments to their country, which, according to the UN, is spent on its nuclear-weapons program. The harsh UN sanctions on North Korea are motivated by the intent to denuclearize the country. After long resisting outside pressure to crack down on North Koreans, Nepal government finally seems to be playing ball.

In a June interview with the BBC World Service during his UK visit, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli faced a question on the environmental impact of the proposed Nijgadh International Airport. Oli responded: “If we cut 2.5 million trees, we can plant five million of them by acquiring necessary lands.” 

That PM Oli was asked the question indicates growing international concern over the possible impact of the Nijgadh airport, which is projected as Nepal’s second international airport after the Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA). Despite government assurances that more trees will be planted than felled, environmentalists are not convinced. Besides the lobbying to change the airport’s proposed site, a group of environmentalists have knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors.

Last Friday, the court ruled that the government had to hold the entire construction process, including the felling of trees. Next week, the apex court will hear arguments from both from government and the environmentalists, and deliver a final verdict. Government authorities defend the plan of an airport in Nijgadh, arguing that it is the best airport location in the plains.

The plan to build a second international airport goes back over 25 years. Two major plane crashes in 1992—Thai Airways, which claimed 310 lives, and Pakistan Airlines, which claimed 300 lives—highlighted the need for another international airport, according to government officials. Subsequently, the Nepal Engineering Consultancy Services Center Limited was entrusted with identifying a suitable location for an airport in the plains. The company submitted its report in 1995, suggesting that Nijgadh could be appropriate. In the late 1990s, there were efforts to build an airport, but they failed to make any headway.

2,500,000 deaths

After the formation of the current government in 2018, then Tourism Minister Rabindra Adhikari revived the initiative. But when the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) was endorsed and made public last year, the airport’s construction suddenly became a major concern for environmentalists. Earlier, environmental impact was not a prominent issue, but has become a global concern of late thanks to the growing impacts of climate change. 

Environmentalists cite a few issues to justify scrapping the plan for an airport in Nijgadh. First, they allege, the EIA report is flawed, as it was prepared by copy-pasting sections of the EIAs for other hydropower projects. Second, a huge number of trees—2.5 million according to the EIA report—will be felled for the airport. Following the protests, government officials have been trying to convince the environmentalists (and others) that they do not plan to cut down so many trees. Third, the proposed area is a wildlife habitat and many endangered and important animals are likely to be affected. Fourth, 8,045 hectares of land has been allocated for the airport, raising questions over the necessity of such a huge area. (See box for other environmental impacts.)

Government officials, however, accuse the environmentalists of trying to block the airport at the behest of foreigners. They say compensatory trees will be planted by identifying possible areas, but progress on negotiations remains elusive.

Arguing that Nijgadh is the best location for the airport, former Captain Prachanda Jung Shah, who worked in aviation for 40 years, says the government has failed to come up with a concrete plan for the airport. “There is no clarity on the Detailed Project Report (DPR). It seems the government’s only focus is on cutting down the trees without any credible plan, which has raised doubts,” he adds.

White lies?

To justify the selection of Nijgadh, the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) has come up with a whiter paper, which says: “The TIA’s capacity has reached a saturation point, so we urgently need a second international airport. Nijgadh provides wider airspace.” What also enlarges the airport’s scope, the white paper further argues, is that passengers from the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh can use it. Additionally, it says, fuel price will be lower, given the shorter distance to the border town of Birgunj, the main trading point between Nepal and India. The paper further states that air and sound pollution will be minimal as the proposed site is located in a dense forest region.

The government has designated the airport as a national pride project. The present EIA comprises airport, its infrastructures and airport city. The proposed second international airport is rated as an ICAO category 4F, comprising two parallel runways with a minimum length of 3km, taxiways, airline set-up, hangers, communication, water supply and sanitation services, as well as a provision for hotels and residential facilities in adjacent areas. “Building an airport in Nijgadh will have a big environmental impact,” says Prabhu Budathoki, an environmentalist. “So we are requesting that the site be changed.”

He cautions that as our domestic resources are insufficient for the airport, we have to raise funds from international investors, “who are unlikely to fund projects that have a big environmental impact, a prominent global agenda now.” The proposed site has major tiger and elephant corridors, he adds, arguing that an old feasibility study cannot reflect the changing national, regional and international environmental contexts and issues.

And then there is the Madhes factor. Nijgadh lies in Province 2, the stronghold of Madhes-based parties, which say that the government is building the airport without consulting them.

“The federal government has not consulted us on such a big airport in Province 2. We also want to build an airport but environmental concerns should be first addressed,” says Raj Kishor Yadav, a senior leader of the Rastriya Janata Party-Nepal. “The government has failed to take important stakeholders into confidence”

KathmanduYou could almost discern a tinge of hope for the regional grouping in Narendra Modi’s December 8 SAARC Day message. “SAARC has made progress, but more needs to be done,” he wrote. In a clear allusion to Pakistan, he added, “Our efforts for greater collaboration have repeatedly been challenged with threats and acts of terrorism.”

Such an environment, he continues, impedes “our shared objective of realizing the full potential of SAARC”. Realizing the full potential of SAARC? The pick of words is odd coming from someone who supposedly wants the regional body dead. He offers more morsels of hope: “SAARC, set up as an organization to build a connected and integrated South Asia, aims at promoting the development and progress of all countries in the region.” Again, why talk up SAARC’s goals if he is determined to ditch it?

When I put this question to Keshav Prasad Bhattarai of the Nepal Institute for Strategic Studies (NISS), he had a curious reply: “What India is trying to do is turn SAARC into another BIMSTEC.” How so?

“How else do we understand a SAARC minus Pakistan that India seems to be pushing for?” he asks. “But it is laughable to imagine a SAARC that has Afghanistan but not Pakistan.” Bhattarai seems to be on to something. In the past few years the Modi government has invested a lot in trying to isolate Pakistan, both regionally and globally. Now, with the new Indian policy of welcoming only non-Muslim immigrants from India’s neighboring countries, Modi is putting down a marker.

The way anti-Muslim hysteria is being whipped up in India, it’s hard to imagine Modi adopting an accommodating line on Pakistan. The goal of the recent statement on SAARC Day could thus have been to hammer in the point that the regional grouping could have done wonders if not for Pakistan.

Nepal is invested in SAARC, having played an important role in its establishment and as the host of its secretariat. Nepal is also the current SAARC chair. But are we flogging a dead horse? Even when India and Pakistan were on talking terms, how effective was the regional grouping?

Without SAARC, India and Pakistan will have one fewer platform to talk with each other. The only other regional grouping both are members of is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. After all, during the last SAARC Summit in Kathmandu, Modi had felt the need to meet Nawaz Sharif secretly. The less the two nuclear powers talk, the deeper will be the suspicions, and the greater the chances of unrest in the region.

As things are, with India as the fulcrum of South Asia, SAARC does not seem to have a viable future. Perhaps the best we can hope is for it to continue as a platform for Tier 2 diplomacy. An Indian government not drunk on partisan Hindu support would realize that India’s economic rise will remain stymied so long as tensions with Pakistan persist. South Asia minus Pakistan is a geographical impossibility. You cannot wish away a country of 200 million, however much you hate it.