Nepal’s Prime Minister Prachanda, during his visit to Beijing to attend the closing ceremony of the Olympics and meet with the country’s leaders, said that Nepal wants to maintain a balanced relationship with both of its neighbors – India and China. This comes after speculations that Kathmandu is moving diplomatically closer to its communist neighbor, after the Maoists formed the new government and when the Nepalese prime minister’s first official foreign visit was to China, breaking with the tradition of Nepali leaders visiting New Delhi first.
Prachanda is undoubtedly walking a diplomatic tightrope by trying to please both of Nepal’s powerful neighbors. The question of Tibet makes this already tough balancing act even more difficult.
For centuries, Nepal has enjoyed a very close cultural, social and economic relationship with Tibet and its people. After the political changes in the region, the country welcomed hundreds of refugees, even though it had a very weak economy. Nepal has always had and continues to have a special place for Tibetans.
Over the years, changes in Tibet have attracted worldwide attention. The Chinese government is often accused of denying Tibetans their rights, stifling religious freedom, destroying religious monuments and documents and arresting dissenters. In the West, the “Tibetan cause” has been embraced by many, including famous personalities like actor Richard Gere. U.S. President George W. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made statements supporting Tibet’s freedom. Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, is a welcomed guest in North America and Europe.
In the past couple of months, with the Olympics being held in China, there has been a renewed worldwide interest in Tibet. Supporters have organized marches and protest rallies to call on China to listen to the wishes of the Tibetan people. In Nepal, hundreds of Tibetan exiles regularly organize protest marches and sit-ins, usually in front of the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu.
International media cover these protest rallies in Kathmandu regularly, often showing pictures of monks being beaten up, dragged and arrested by the police. These images show Nepal as a nation that does not welcome dissent and that does not respect freedom of speech. This is where the country’s dilemma over its Tibetan neighbors begins.
Pictures of monks being treated this way while protesting nonviolently are ugly, but it is important to look at Nepal’s difficult position.
The tiny landlocked nation has an economy ravaged by civil war and no capacity to defend itself; it is simply in no position to challenge China. In fact, the only nations that can afford the ire of Beijing are the United States and the European powerhouses. Nepal is sadly forced to choose between standing up to its neighbor, with which it shares a centuries-long history, and fighting for its own economic survival. It is impossible to judge the country for choosing to save itself first.
Although Nepal is more dependent on India for its economy, China no doubt plays a vital role. Trade routes between Tibet and Nepal, Chinese investment, and the country’s support in the international community are all vital for Nepal.
This does not condone the violence against peaceful demonstrators, but the international community, especially the Western world, has to understand the reasons why Nepal is forced to be the “ugly monk-beater” and provide fair and balanced coverage.
The other side of the Tibetan question is the sheer hypocrisy of the self-appointed “grand generals” for democracy – the United States and its European allies. These nations are very quick to support the Tibetans, but where are those feelings of support and solidarity when it comes to the people stuck in forgotten tragedies, like those in Palestine and Sri Lanka? If freedom for Tibetans is important, then it should be considered equally important for Palestinians to have freedom and for the people of Sri Lanka to be able live in peace and security.
Is this contradiction because the West is afraid of a rising China and is using the Tibet issue to gain leverage? Or it because the West is just following the hot new “in” trend of supporting Tibet, like students in high school? Whatever the reason may be, until the West has a more balanced approach to independence movements around the world and values every suffering citizen equally, it should stay away from passing judgments on other nations – especially the ones like Nepal who are economically and defensively weak and who need their neighbors’ support just to survive.
Previously published at UPI Asia Online and Nepal Abroad.
