Neighbourhood watch

Som P. Pudasaini

Both Indian Foreign Secretary Shiva Shankar Menon and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salaman Bashir were in Kathmandu during the last two weeks. Though they spent almost equal amounts of time in the capital, it goes without saying that the range and depth of Nepal's ties with the two countries are far from similar. While Nepal does have good relations with both India and Pakistan, the ties with the former are much wider and complex, be it with regard to people-to-people contact, trade and commerce or politico-diplomatic interactions. Longstanding and periodically emerging irritants are integral parts of Indo-Nepal relations. As a result, Nepal is regularly on India's radar, and India is invariably in the Nepali news. On the other hand, Pakistan-Nepal relations appear on each other's radars only periodically, given the limited interactions and the extent of the physical distance marked by lack of a shared border.
In the Indian context, longstanding and contentious border disputes, such as those over Susta and Kalapani, remain.

Periodic allegations of Indian encroachment and atrocities — the latest occurring just last month at Dang and Bara — continue to crop up. Furthermore, most bilateral deals governing water resources or trade and commerce as well as treaties, such as those of 1950 and 1965, are perceived to be more beneficial to New Delhi by the Nepalis. Ultimately, the popular perception of New Delhi as “big brother” with a tendency to interfere in Nepali politics and gain an undue share from it can hardly be brushed off. Issues and sensitivities must, therefore, be dealt with fairly and diplomatically, possibly at both the people and the highest political levels, in the best interests of the two peoples with a long shared history.
While the ties with New Delhi are unavoidable yet require constant nurturing to keep them healthy, Pakistan is a bit distanced frontier with more potential than already explored. Today, Nepal's trade with Pakistan is miniscule (worth Rs. 180 million in imports and Rs. 80 million in exports). Sadly, Nepal faces a trade deficit of Rs. 100 million even with Pakistan. Of course, it is nowhere near the billions of rupees of trade and deficit with our biggest trading partner, India. Nepal's imports from Pakistan largely consist of items such as leather goods, dried fruits and pharmaceuticals while it exports tea, pashmina and herbs. Pakistan's provision of scholarships to Nepali students (15 per year usually, 31 last year) in the fields of engineering, medicine, pharmacology and dentistry are modest but appreciated. Given the mutually warm popular perceptions and potential, there is room for enhanced economic cooperation, technology transfer and tourism. Furthermore, given close Sino-Pakistan relations and Nepal's controversy-free ties with Pakistan, opportunities to cooperate globally and regionally, including in SAARC, are ample.
Menon's visit was largely political, his second in the last four months, and somewhat impromptu. Meanwhile, Bashir's sojourn, the first by a senior Pakistani official since the monarchy was overthrown and the first bilateral consultation between the two foreign secretaries since 2004, was termed “routine”. Nevertheless, the close timing of the two visits, at a very unstable time in Nepali politics, has raised curiosity in the minds of those aware of the long-running allegations of ISI and RAW activities in Nepal by New Delhi and Islamabad, respectively.
Menon reportedly dashed to Kathmandu to study the latest political developments and to encourage political bigwigs to work together to draft a new constitution and complete the peace process. A visit by Prime Minister Madhav Nepal to India, at the invitation of Manmohan Singh which was extended even before Nepal had completed his ever dragging cabinet formation, was reportedly finalized. Menon also doused the fire (by proposing to activate joint mechanisms at the national, district and local levels) lit by the alleged border encroachment and BSF atrocities in Dang and Bara. A significant aspect of the visit was to persuade Nepal on an early signing of the proposed extradition treaty, which possibly gained momentum with the decision to hand it over to the two home secretaries.
New Delhi, according to some, is keen on such a treaty largely due to its belief that the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI is active in Nepal with activities detrimental to its security. The Indian intelligence agency RAW has also stressed the issue even in the context of tackling terrorism in South Asia. Given the Indian move, Pakistani authorities have also broached, formally or informally, the subject of signing an extradition treaty with Nepal in the past. Consequently, Bashir's visit, coming on the heels of Menon's, has raised speculation about whether the former came with a serious intention to revive the extradition treaty issue. Chatter as the chattering classes will, Nepali Foreign Secretary Gyan Chandra Acharya denied that Bashir had raised “the issue” of an Indo-Nepal extradition treaty “with him”.
What did happen, according to the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, was a review of the “entire gamut of Pakistan-Nepal relations” to “comprehensively upgrade the bilateral relationship” with stress on enhancing trade and economic cooperation, including through a Pakistan-Nepal Free Trade Agreement. Bashir also handed over an invitation from Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani to Prime Minister Nepal to visit Pakistan. Prime Minister Nepal, in turn, pledged to take “stern action” against any elements that attempt to use Nepali space against friendly nations and stressed the need to “stand together to fight terrorism” in SAARC. Some believe this pledge may have been directed more to reassure an India impatient to sign the new extradition treaty.
Regardless of Indian urgency and Pakistani concern, or lack thereof, the extradition treaty with the contentious provision allowing expulsion of third-country citizens to India is a serious matter. Any treaty or understanding that helps prevent crime and terrorism in our neighbourhood, region or the world must be encouraged. But utmost attention must be paid by our politicians that the commitment made is in line with national reality and international convention. It would be unwise to hurriedly sign such a document without building a national consensus only to blame others later, as has been the case in the past.
Additionally, it has been agreed both nationally and internationally, including by India, that the responsibility of the Nepal government during the ongoing political transition is to conclude the peace process and draft a new constitution. This, of course, is in addition to running the day-to-day affairs of the state and ensuring law and order. It is not entitled or required to negotiate and sign new treaties or review and revise the contentious ones signed in the past. Such actions should be left to a future government, one elected under the mandate of a new constitution.
Should our leaders agree to move forward with the extradition treaty, they may find it hard to convince China to delay negotiations, including in the context of the lately propounded foreign affairs' principle of “equi-proximity” between our two neighbours, on the friendship treaty which was proposed to former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda”. Indeed, Beijing may ask that a provision for extradition of Tibetan agitators be considered.
Lessons learnt from other nations' experiences, as well as our own past, teach us that important treaties with long term implications must be negotiated in a stable domestic political environment where consensus is possible. Nevertheless, having a spot on India and Pakistan's radars (and that of many other nations as reflected by the visit of American Assistant Secretary Blake and China's invitation to Prime Minister Nepal to visit it) simultaneously is no bad thing. If only our leaders were able to use such opportunities to pursue appropriate political, cultural and economic agendas that would benefit the nation and the people.

Posted on: 2009-07-03 23:46:04