In poor taste

Proposal on Lipu-Lekh

Related story

The taste of fine chocolate

The joint statement issued at the end of the recent three-day China visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has unexpectedly emerged as matter of concern for Nepal. Point number 28 of the 41-point communiqué states that the two sides, India and China, "agreed to hold negotiations on augmenting the list of traded commodities, and expand border trade at ... Lipu-Lekh Pass." It took our foreign policy establishment by surprise because Lipu-Lekh has been recognized individually by India, China and Nepal as a "tri-junction" point between the three countries, and hence its nickname of "Tri-Corner". So for India and China to agree to expand trade through Lipu-Lekh at bilateral level, without any knowledge of Nepal, is troubling. It suggests either that the two countries are confident of getting Nepal's nod on the proposal, or more troublingly, they simply don't care what Nepal thinks. Whatever the underlying motive, this gesture will fuel suspicion that the two emerging global powers will not resist from trampling on the interests of Nepal if it serves their larger geostrategic and economic interests.

That would be a big mistake on their part as such moves will needlessly make Nepalis suspicious of even their gestures of friendship in the future. Even in the immediate rescue and relief efforts after the recent earthquakes in Nepal, the two sides seemed to be competing on who could do more. This made their gestures of help towards Nepal seem more like part and parcel of their larger geostrategic rivalry than considered humanitarian assistance. And now, the joint statement on Lipu-Lekh. Some might see this as needless fussing. After all, nothing has been decided yet as India and China have only "agreed to hold negotiations". Yet the drafters of the joint communiqué were surely aware that in international diplomacy nothing is said, much less written down and signed by two state heads, without carefully weighing every single word. What concerns us the most is that Nepali actors came to know about the decision on Lipu-Lekh only after the joint statement was made public.

We hope that India and China will now try to make amends for the faux pas and take Nepal into confidence on developing Lipu-Lekh as a point for tripartite trade between India, China and Nepal—not the least because Nepal can help (rather than hinder) them achieve their larger economic goals. If the three sides can come to such an agreement, this ancient trade pass can once again be developed into a bustling hub of inter-country trade. Notably, during the Indian prime minister's China visit, the two sides signed 21 trade and investment deals worth US $22 billion. If Nepal could serve as an entrepot between its two giant neighbors—something the landlocked country has long aspired for—that could perhaps be their single biggest contribution to rebuilding of the earthquake-ravaged Nepal. But such cooperation will call for, above all, transparency in their dealings with one another. Despite the suspicions resulting from the recent joint statement, we are confident that the proposal of India and China to expand trade through Lipu-Lekh pass can still be turned into something of benefit for all three sides.