http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/world/asia/18nepal.html?ref=world
This article discusses the changing political situation and power dynamics between India, Nepal, and China. It discusses the fact that, while Nepal has historically been much closer to India, China has recently stepped up its efforts to exert influence Nepal and strengthen the relationship between the two countries. This has become especially true since the time before the 2008 Summer Olympics, when pro-Tibetan protests in Tibet spilled over into Nepal and attracted international attention there. As a result, China has been using its influence in Nepal to get that country to strengthen border security so as to prevent Tibetans from traveling from Tibet down into India.
I thought this article was interesting because it directly addressed international power dynamics and the security dilemma. Essentially, the relationship between Nepal, India, and China can be seen as a struggle over a buffer region. Both India and China are concerned with what is going on in Nepal. China is concerned with suppressing Tibetan dissidents, and both India and China are concerned with the overall stability of the Nepalese government. The shifting power dynamics also show the increasing influence that China is wielding in Asia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It does seem that each country wants Nepal as a buffer zone for security reasons. With both countries becoming even more significant world powers, they're relying strongly on realist doctrine to assure security and minimize potential threats from each other. China, whose attachment historically has been weaker than India's attachment to Nepal, is also looking to use Nepal to stop Tibetan refugees. It would be interesting to find out how Nepal feels about this-whether they're more partial to one country or prefer to take a middle road. I wonder how they feel about increasing their border security to increase China's security.
ReplyDeleteAll of these conflicts involving China really make it clear what a rising power China is becoming. The Chinese believe that their country's increased wealth and commerce entitle them to play a larger role in international politics and to assert their authority wherever they pleases. Both Tibet and Nepal are under threat from the growing great power, and I think this calls for some balancing from other strong nations. China cannot be allowed to dominate East and South Asia; otherwise we may be faced with a situation similar to the pre-WWII era: a powerful Nazi Germany looking to create a European empire. No one wants China to take over the entire Asian continent, but this could be the direction that it's moving, as the cases of Tibet, Nepal, and Taiwan illustrate.
ReplyDeleteAccording to realist doctrine, is a Chinese hegemon in that region the natural progression of geopolitics and a step in the direction of global stability? And does India, as the other strong nation in this conflict, and as the society at the receiving end of the Tibetan exodus, feel that supporting the Nepalese intent to remain autonomous worth the potential benefit of a tighter border Chinese if the Tibetans do just evacuate their land entirely?
ReplyDelete