P Kharel

Deadly border brawl between Indian and Chinese troops in the disputed border valley of Galwan last fortnight killed at least 20 Indian soldiers has made South Asia and other major powers sit up to assess the likely implications in the international political landscape. Beijing attributes the incident to India’s “provocative” activity whereas New Delhi charges China of “premeditated attack”.
No gun shots were fired but primitive practices and tools like stones, spiked clubs and fisticuffs were used in the skirmish, as a 1996 agreement bars them from using guns and explosives on the border region. India has admitted that 20 of its troops were killed and at least 85 others were injured in the clashes. To show that both sides are serious about lowering the tensions, they have played down the release of a dozen Indian soldiers by the Chinese side.
Trying to fish in troubled waters, the United States claimed the Chinese suffered as many as 35 fatalities — a suggestion lacking credibility in light of American intelligence network in that communist country, developed over several decades, was “smashed” six years ago. India has not given any specifics regarding its estimation of Chinese fatalities. Of late, China is reported to be speeding up infrastructure building activity close to the common border, which sparked off the latest clashes between the world’s two most-populous nations that share 3,440-km common border. Beijing believes Washington is behind India’s troop movement, the most serious since the 1970s.
New Delhi seems to be inching towards the carrot dangled by the prospects of American industries in China being shifted to sites outside the world No. 2 economy in the wake of the running feud between Beijing and Washington in an election year in the US. It also announced preparedness to “impose costs” on China. However, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to stammer in explaining to the opposition parties in parliament as whether foreign troops were on Indian territory and, if so, how did they get there in the first place. Dodging the query, he vowed a “decisive reply” to the Chinese.

Core interests
First and foremost, economics is what all modern politics is about. The past six months have reiterated in no uncertain terms to not just a handful few with inside knowledge but also to the world at large. As tactics and tensions get sharper, the cutting edge gets blurred as to which side might eventually have an upper hand. Chances are that New Delhi might have exhausted its options beyond what it exhibited with its other neighbours in South Asia over the decades, including Nepal.
In their ceaseless search for bigger space for prevailing on global agendas, big powers maintain a vast web of information collection channels, including deep-seated intelligence networks. Strong espionage networks are among the priorities of big powers, which field regular agents, probationary-personnel and sleepers that get activated at crucial times when something very important turns up.
American whistle blower disclosed how the US conducted widespread foreign surveillance, much to Washington’s embarrassment. Snowden failed to secure refugee status in Norway when Oslo said he needed to be physically present for his request to be scrutinised. Now living in exile in Russia since 2013, he has been nominated several times for the Nobel Prize since revealing the nature and scope of the US surveillance.
If cornered, Beijing could begin unsheathing its financial knives. Its large investments made in various continents have been remarkable in the past decade and a half, remarkably in Africa. The massive Belt and Road Initiative, dubbed as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature project, has inspired awe in the developing world and fearsome competition for in the traditionally dominant economies.
Nepal could be in for a cloud of uncertainty caused by the clash of interests exhibited by its two immediate giant neighbours whose combined population accounts for one-third of humanity. Then the Pakistan factor, a fellow South Asian state like India, comes into sharp focus on account of the Sino-Indian clashes in the high mountains. Pakistan borders both India and China. The trio’s history in the last seven decades give room for serious concerns in the neighbourhood fearing larger and perhaps even longer wars.
China, India and Pakistan having gone to war several times in the post-World War II decades, the concerns in the international community in the wake of souring ties among the three in the recent times are legitimate. No less than 500,000 troops from the two neighbours are amassed on their borders. Apart from their involvement in armed conflicts, all three possess nuclear weapons. That troubles especially South Asia. For instance, Nepal’s geographical position is located very close to the potential flash points on its eastern and western reaches.
Whether nuclear weapons are of an exclusively deterrent value or invite constant risks offer endless fodder for heated debates. It depends on the political leadership at a particular point and time. The risk, however, lurks; if the Damocles’ sword threatens an individual, a nuclear blast annihilates staggering number of people. In view of the recent series of international events, countries like North Korea and Iran might resume their deep thinking on its various aspects.
Escalation of tensions could spell long-term uncertainty and high-alert situations. To most governments, strategic interests take precedence over all other considerations. Where leaders are corrupt, the government is vulnerable to malpractices compromising core interests.

Monopolised concern
Security concerns should not be the monopoly of big states. A global policy in this regard should be set in order. That’s why pro-active non-aligned Nepal spoke against the Soviet 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia and accorded recognition to Bangladesh only after the new state’s bordering neighbour Burma welcomed it. Individual countries should weigh in as to which is what and whether it is advantageous to them. The approach should apply to the overtures and support from any country, whatever the type of its political system—democratic, semi-democratic, autocratic or communist, that is, the United States, European Union, India or China, among others.
The sanctity of national and territorial integrity is equally applicable to all nations—big or small, rich or poor, military power or not. Non-compliance will lead to accumulated costs—severe when the tone of the times and the advantage of changed contexts demand their pound of flesh. The underdog and victims tend to have long memories, lying low until the climes change for the craved for strike.

(Professor P. Kharel specialises in political communication.)