Oped»
Failed state syndrome
AUG 03 -
At a time when political parties are defaming democracy and undermining people’s mandate in the name of democratic practices to form a new government, a number of research studies have indicated that Nepal may turn towards a failed state from a fragile state. The globally well-regarded magazine ‘Foreign Policy’, a ‘Failed State Index’ published by the International Peace Fund and a London based think-tank Chatham House have drawn the conclusion based upon their researches that there is a high possibility of Nepal becoming a failed state. As per their argument, political instability, a weak economy, fragile security and lack of the rule of law are the potential indicators of Nepal’s failed state status. Putting Nepal in the 26th position on the failed states index, the report’s analysis concluded that if the ongoing elusive peace process does not reach a logical conclusion and the constitution is not promulgated on time, political parties may lose their legitimacy and non-state actors and armed groups may create anarchy across the country.
Analysing Nepal’s uneven strategic relations with China and India, Greg Bruno in ‘Foreign Affairs’ analysed that a ‘proxy war’ between them may have severe effects on the national security of Nepal. Charu Lata Hogg, a strategic affairs researcher of Chatham House has concluded that ‘the continuing political flux and fragile security make Nepal an ideal playing field for international actors.’
Is Nepal really becoming a failed state and a hot bed for foreign interference? These are a number of serious questions in terms of the future of sovereignty, democracy and peace. But neither political parties nor their leaders have seriously considered the ramifications of the failed state. They are chanting for “peace, constitution and consensus” as political rhetoric, but bickering for a majority government. Such power hungry attitudes of the leaders, political instability, elusive peace process, the pathetic security situation and fears of potential foreign intervention could be the cause of turning Nepal’s nascent federal democratic republic into a failed state. Hence, these facts and indicators of a failed state and the frantic dance of the parties for power indicate that Nepal as a nation-state is in a serious crisis.
Nepal’s strategic importance as a buffer state between two emerging world powers has brought it into the international limelight. Nepal was discussed in the United States Senate in February and the importance of Nepal for the US relationship with India and
China and has been acknowledged in its national security
strategy documents. India and China, in their security policies of 2009 and 2010, have given higher priority
to Nepal with the analysis that Nepal’s political and security situation directly affects the security of both countries.
India has been claiming that anti-Indian activities in Nepal are seriously jeopardising Indian national security. India has been continuously asking Nepal to sign the extradition treaty.
China claims that free-Tibet activities under the pretext of human rights demonstrations taking place in Nepal are threatening its security. Expressing its serious discontent with the demonstration during the Olympics, the then Chinese ambassador publicly expressed his aggression. When the Maoists came to power they banned Tibetan protests in Nepal.
China often endorses peace, stability and non-interference in the international forum. But after the Madhes movement, time and again, it has been raising the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nepal. Moreover, it formally declared that, if necessary, China is ready to help Nepal to protect its sovereignty and independence. The declaration of assistance to protect Nepal’s sovereignty indicates how weak and fragile Nepal’s sovereignty and independence are and how worried China is about Nepal. Has Nepal really reached such critical and sensitive state?
India and China called Nepal’s Home Minister to Delhi and Beijing to discuss their security concerns. Home Minister Bhim Rawal went along with the Inspector General of Police and expressed his commitment to respect and address the sensitivities of both the countries. During his visit, Indian Minister for External Affairs urged Nepal to urgently address the demands of India. Chi yang Yu, spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed China’s concerns when Maoists announced the general strike in May stating that Nepal’s political instability and fragile security would have serious implications for peace and stability of the entire South-Asian region.
Instead of dealing with the government, China and India seem to be reaching out to security agencies (Police and Army) directly. They do not have trust in the government ability. When these countries that have direct strategic interests, sideline the government and deal directly with security agencies their influence will obviously increase significantly and national sovereignty will be compromised.
Internal and external challenges have become even more difficult after the establishment of federal democratic republic. In particular, demands for autonomous states with the right to self determination and armed ethnic and regional conflict have raised the serious questions on the integrated sovereignty of Nepal. Some armed groups have even burned the national flag demanding for a separate and independent state. But the government has not done anything because Nepal as a nation is so weak that it cannot do anything. Consequently, lawlessness, anarchy, impunity are increasing and non-state actors are prevailing, thus Nepal is becoming unable to safeguard its citizens. Political
parties are so weak and power-hungry that they have not been able
to form a new government even after a month. If the parties
cannot form a government, can they make a new constitution? Will the ongoing elusive peace process reach a logical conclusion? Can they rescue the country?
The international community believes that Nepal cannot make decisions on important issues (i.e. economic policy, development, hydro-power) nor can they implement these decisions due to political instability and insecurity. The government lost its credibility due to failure to make a timely and transparent decision relating to controversial MRP deal. A report recently released by Oxford University has revealed that economic indicators are equally poor. And our economy is heavily dependent on foreign assistance and remittances while the trade deficit is increasing constantly so that we are becoming dependent economically as well. All these are the indicators of a failed state. Most of the African failed states that relapsed into violent conflict after domestic conflict passed through the same state in which Nepal is at this very moment.
The negotiations with donors used to be focused on diplomatic relations and economic prosperity. Now their concern is more towards ‘security’ which is not a positive sign for a sovereign country. According to the theory of political science, politics, economy, social, security and the rule of law are the five indicators of the success or failure of a state. Western donors have increasingly focused on security as the political, economic, social and legal status of Nepal has weakened. Neighbours have similarly prioritised security to minimise the implications of Nepal’s insecurity in their territory.
Security challenges are getting more and more intricate, but Nepal does not have agencies that can analyse these challenges and make appropriate policy. Taking into consideration national interest and concerns of its neighbours, Nepal should maintain diplomatic and strategic relations, but it should never compromise on national interests.
(Wagle is a security expert and executive director of Nepal Institute for Policy Studies)
Geja Sharma Wagle
geja.sharma@gmail.com
Posted on: 2010-08-04 07:32
Headlines
Advertisements
