two posts in one day? someone has a backlog of possible blogging topics and a report due for work, hm?
right then.
so, i'm not sure why the revelation in the leaked Delhi cables , that China may be directly paying off Nepali police to arrest Tibetans crossing Nepal's northern border, is a particularly newsworthy one (and maybe it isn't...aside from the syndicated news story, there doesn't seem to be much commentary on teh interwebs). China makes no bones about its priorities as concerns its diminutive neighbor to the south. About two years ago, China pledged $2.6million in non-lethal security aid, in the same breath praising Nepal's support for the one-China policy. It doesn't exactly take a career diplomat to decode the expectations associated with that aid money.
what is presumably supposed to be more shocking is the direct incentivization (read: bribes) provided by the government of one country to the security forces of another country to bypass nationally and internationally sanctioned immigration policies to deliver illegal immigrants directly back to their country of origin.
but come on now...the Chinese government's reputation is not exactly one of the highest respect for international norms, and the Nepali security sector is notoriously corrupt and inefficient (in a country where there is a historically instantiated, institutionally incentivized and generally accepted attitude of official impunity in pretty much every sector). surely this can't be that much of a shock.
what's also always interesting for me is the huge disparity between Nepalis' opinions of India (and Indians) and China. there is a LOT of distrust and dislike for India and Indians* (which, to be fair, is reciprocated by the feelings I've heard some Indians express about Nepalis, which are more than a little racist). dislike for the Indian government stems from what Nepalis describe as a long history of gross interference in Nepali politics. now, i'll give you that India likes to keep its hand in, so to speak, and that there has been a history of border disputes going back to the formation of Nepal as a country.
on the other hand, China has just as much interest in influencing Nepali politics, especially as it seeks to maintain regional dominance. Nepali hydropower, for instance, is an area in which China is eager to have a say, and one in which Chinese investment is probably going to be detrimental to India's interest...with no particular stake in promoting Nepal's interest except as a tool for gaining geopolitical leverage. while it's not like that's a zero sum game for Nepal, hydropower is essential both as the main power source for Nepal and as one of the only exploitable natural resources in this small, landlocked country defined by its lack of development and inaccessible terrain....and it's not like the Nepali government or private sectors have the capacity to really compete (let alone cooperate to compete together) against the staggering efficiency and economic power of Chinese state-owned hydropower interests.
i happen to think that China does these things more "quietly", exerting economic influence both openly and discreetly, while India tends to exert more open political pressure on its neighbor. it's for others to decide if one of these is "better" or "worse", but i guess i find it kind of ironic that some individuals rail against India, but have no concerns about China, and especially odd that political parties, mostly certain maoist factions, rally popular sentiment against India to score political points, while still cuddling up to Beijing.
* i am in no way arguing that a nation's people and its government SHOULD be conflated, i'm just saying that they are here, inevitably for worse.
is there concern in Nepal about China damming rivers that originate in Tibet and flow into Nepal? because there certainly are similar concerns in India, particularly in Arunachal Pradesh. China is planning to build a hydropower plant in Tibet that will seriously cut waterflow to Arunachal, and it's a huge problem, especially for farmers who rely on that water for irrigation (though I'm sure Indian politicians and major construction companies are more worried about the loss in hydropower potential).
ReplyDeletealso, I had no idea China was planning to buy hydropower from Nepal--usually the transmission lines go in the opposite direction towards India (downhill toward the plains), because the other direction is just really, really tough terrain, with peaks and all.
my understanding is that they're not buying from nepal to satisfy their own electricity needs, but that they're interested in investing heavily in the potentially very lucrative and as yet underdeveloped (for lots of reasons) nepali hydropower industry. my point was that it's a vital source of income and it may prove less than ideal to have another country have such a (potentially) tremendous amount of control over it...and it certainly wouldn't end up being helpful to Indian concerns (although my only dog in this fight is Nepali development).
ReplyDeletea valid question is, of course, is the other option (as opposed to heavy chinese investment/control over these resources) hydropower just remaining plain developed here? (which, of course, isn't the only important question about sustainable hydro development in nepal, only the most immediately pertinent one).
oh ok, that makes sense. I was thinking that the Chinese wanted Nepal's rivers as a power source because that's how India develops hydroelectricity in Nepal and Bhutan--to be transmitted back to India. (Interesting fact: Bhutan produces far more electricity than its entire population demands, yet only about 60% of the rural population has access to electricity. Who is getting this power? Assam and West Bengal, with plans to extend the transmission lines all the way to Delhi.)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that Nepal shouldn't let India or China control their hydro resource. Bhutan can preach about their "sustainable" Gross National Happiness development scheme all they want, but the reality is any development scheme that involves other countries controlling the largest sector of the economy (hydro = 90% of Bhutan's economy = in India's hands) can't be terribly sustainable. So Nepal shouldn't follow the example of Bhutan. (Though of course there are other reasons Bhutan allows India to do this--they want India to protect them from China, so they pander to India's interests.)