Opinion Wen and why

At home,Bhattarai has come under fire from opposition parties like the Nepali Congress that call this a diplomatic fiasco. They say China cancelled the visit as Bhattarai unilaterally made public the information on November 15,flouting diplomatic norms. “It was inappropriate and immature on the part of Bhattarai. Nepal will be seen as a country incapable of handling a high-level foreign visit,” said Ram Sharan Mahat,leader of the Nepali Congress. Rajeshwar Acharya,Nepal’s former ambassador to China,called it a “diplomatic misconduct on the part of the prime minister”.

There were,of course,fears that Wen may face protests by Tibetans and supporters of the Free Tibet movement. In anticipation of this,the government,which is firm in its One China policy and recognises Tibet as China’s integral part,had made elaborate security arrangements around the Hotel Soaltee where he was scheduled to stay — there were plans to airlift him from the Tribhuvan International Airport to the hotel,and then to Godavari where he was to plant a sapling. Altogether,10 ministers and the chairman of the China Exim Bank,which had agreed to advance a soft loan for the 760 MW West Seti hydro project,were supposed to be part of the 182-member team from Beijing,the biggest contingent so far.

While China was tightlipped all through,Nepalese authorities,including some ministers,stated that China was going to offer at least four billion Nepali rupees as soft loan,increase its annual grant to Nepal substantially,upgrade an existing airport in the tourist city of Pokhara,build four major roads along the Nepal-Tibet border and four dry ports for Nepal’s bilateral as well as diversified trade with the world outside. This suggested that China would play a role as important as India in its development and that Nepal’s relation with the northern neighbour will be as special as with the southern. A high-level team of the Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation,which has Maoist chief Prachanda as a vice-chairman and is interested in Lumbini’s all-round development,was also in the capital,a week prior to the scheduled visit.

Beijing apparently was clear that Nepal needs to be given a firm message on the Tibetan issue,and therefore,the fear of Tibetan protest may not have been the most important reason for the cancellation of the visit. It could well have been Nepal’s internal problems.

On December 11,a group of ministers belonging to the United Democratic Madhesi Front,including Bijay Gachhadar and Jaya Prakash Gupta,met the prime minister with a warning that they would withdraw their support — something that would cost Bhattarai his chair — if he did not follow through with the four-point deal agreed on August 27,which included,among others,the entry of 10,000 youngsters from Nepal’s Terai area in the army. No ultimatum was served,but such a threat which endangered the survival of the government just 10 days before the much-awaited visit could have been a reason for Beijing to have second thoughts.

As China visibly increases its presence and interest in Nepal,almost on par with India’s,activities of the Madhes parties and the deliberate or innocuous leakage of dates by a prime minister who is perceived as pro-India,would not have gone unnoticed.

The cancellation of the visit does not necessarily mean China’s interest has diminished. The way it has happened,however,gives rise to concerns whether the incident would in anyway dent relations with China,which is keen to sign treaties on security.

yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com