Trilateral Partnership Agenda Still Alive?

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda often beams with his typical smiles when the matter of Nepal-India-China trilateral partnership comes to the fore. Prachanda claims to be the progenitor of this idea. He is the one who first floated the concept of trilateral partnership of three Asian neighbours during his visit to China in 2009. But this idea has never surfaced formally on the table of official diplomatic parley. Even Prachanda, now, does not appear too enthusiastic about this concept.

China’s initial response to trilateral mechanism between the three Himalayan neighbours was positive and it enthused Prachanda. China may seek to fit the trilateral cooperation mechanism into its signature project — Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China is keen to enter into South Asia’s huge market for which Nepal could be a gateway and trilateral mechanism would be a better platform. But New Delhi’s retort is lacklustre. India wants to go alone bilaterally and is against bringing China into the matters with South Asian neighbours. India’s reluctance and objection to the trilateral concept comes with its strategic intent of not letting any other power to make inroad into its sphere of influence. 

Strategic influence

Moreover, New Delhi christens the trilateral concept as Beijing’s bogie. India’s reluctance to join the BRI is thus understandable as New Delhi takes the BRI as China’s strategic arm. India and China have their own core interests in Nepal. China’s interest in Nepal is more economic than strategic while India’s interests are both strategic and economic. Their interests diverge not only in Nepal but globally. In the global level, China and United States are competing for strategic influence. In South Asia and more particularly in Nepal, there is a three-cornered geopolitical contest between the United States, India and China. 

As India often claims South Asia as its sphere of influence, it carries colonial era’s mindset in foreign policy conduct in South Asia. China’s strategic ambition, too, has enlarged globally including in the neighbourhood. United States has global presence and wants its strong footprints in Nepal, too, primarily to check rising China. The US seeks to penetrate into China’s fault lines and weaken Beijing, for which Nepal is also an important location due to its border with China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. Thus US is trying to further strengthen its presence in Nepal.

China’s presence is visible as it seeks to watch possible activities aided and abetted by some western powers in Nepal. China is more concerned with US presence in Nepal and its consequences. Although Nepal has adopted one-China policy and vowed not to allow its territory to be used against the interests of any of its two neighbours, China is always watchful. India and China have one similarity that both countries want external powers to keep away from Nepal. At the same time, India is always sceptic and uncomfortable with China’s presence in Nepal but Beijing takes it otherwise. While India always fear China and seeks to pull Nepal away from bonhomie with China, Beijing understands Nepal’s geopolitical vulnerability and instead suggests Nepal to maintain close and cooperative relations with India. 

The perceptional differences create friction and susceptibility. In the case of Nepal’s relations with India and China, bilateralism has created susceptibility. Given Nepal’s geopolitical position, Kathmandu, however, cannot afford to choose one neighbour against the other and our foreign policy also does not allow so.  The geographical and geopolitical compulsions dictate countries in the region to compromise and cooperate. However, India and China have always been rival and this inimical perception makes it difficult for these two neighbours to agree on trilateral partnership proposition. 

Trilateralism is the alliance, cooperation, partnership among the three countries. In the relations of countries, bilateralism is the most common phenomenon. Multilateralism, too, is in vogue as multiple regional and global multilateral institutions are at work.  Trilateral mechanisms are in a few numbers. Most of the trilateral mechanisms are either of military nature or have simply failed. Although this is a new discourse in the contemporary world some exercises for trilateral mechanism were made in the past. Japan, South Korea and United States have trilateral mechanism. Australia, United Kingdom and United States created AUKUS in the Indo-Pacific region and Australia-New Zealand and United States created trilateral mechanism called ANZUS. But these mechanisms are of strategic and security nature. United States, Canada and Mexico have trilateral free trade agreement in economic front. 

Prachanda proposed Nepal-India-China trilateral partnership to start a new discourse in Nepal’s foreign policy domain. However, astute and calculative Prachanda knew India’s reservation and indigestion very well and put this agenda on hold. He once had bitter face-off with India’s foreign policy titans when Prachanda tried to make a new experiment in his foreign policy quest during his first term as Prime Minister. Experience makes a man mature, so is with Prachanda. He sometimes plays with fire and make new experiments in politics. It has sometimes benefited and sometimes boomeranged. But he does not hesitate to realise the mistake and correct.  The trials and error and experiments have made him more mature and pragmatic not only in politics but in the conduct of foreign policy as well. 

Pragmatic foreign policy 

Prachanda knows well that one can choose a friend but not a neighbour. In his third term as Prime Minister, Prachanda is more pragmatist in foreign policy handling. In the present triangular geopolitical contest of three big powers, Prime Minister Prachanda has adopted a balanced policy. India, China, United States and European Union are important powers with which he seeks to maintain balanced relations. United States and Europe have their own role in Nepal's democratisation, modernisation and development. As immediate neighbours, India and China occupy more important place in Nepal’s foreign policy.  

Nepal’s survival and development, thus, hinges largely on how we can maintain balanced relations with these four powers.  Prachanda’s concept of trilateral partnership with India and China also came with the view to fostering greater cooperation, peace and stability in this region, which is in perfect tandem with the non-aligned foreign policy enshrined in the constitution. Since Prachanda is visiting China next month, much is expected from his Beijing sojourn. It is to be seen whether Prachanda will again bring the trilateral partnership into the agenda.

(The author is former ambassador and former chief editor of this daily. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)