 |
| |
VOL. 03, NO. 11, Oct. 30 2009 (Kartik 13, 2066) |
|
'Talks, Not Agitation, Good For Nepalese Maoists' -- Professor Wong Hangwei
Maoist chief Prachanda’s remarks after he returned from China recently have fuelled speculations about what might have transpired between him and top Chinese leadership. Outspoken Chinese expert on Nepalese and Indian affairs, Professor Wong Hangwei gave some hints in an interview with NAVIN SINGH KHADKA of the BBC Nepali Service. Excerpts:
How do you see Prachanda’s recent China-visit?
It was the first formal visit by the Unified CPN Maoist of Nepal. Before 2006, this party had no contact and relation with China. It was after it became legalized in Nepal and since it became perhaps the largest party following the elections, it started relation with China. But so far, no high level delegation from that party visited China. Prachanda did visit China a few months ago but then he came here as a premier and not as a UCPN (Maoist) chairman.
What significance do you see in Prachanda’s China-visit as his party chairman?
As a premier, he had come to China to take part in the Olympics ceremony. He then exchanged views with government officials. The talks between two governments is different from the talks between two parties. After China opened the door, the Chinese Communist Party has had a new policy under which it has had relations with almost 400 parties from all over the world – up from 140. So the policy of the CCP is to establish good relations with all the parties in different countries, certainly with emphasis on neighbouring countries’ different parties. Usually the purpose of establishing such relation is to exchange viewpoints on questions of common concern. The other policy is to work together to increase exchanges and cooperation, I think this is the main purpose of Communist Party of China contacting parties of other countries. As regards to contacting the UCPN (Maoist) of Nepal, it is for the same purpose. With Prachada’s visit, the formal relationship between the two parties has established and this is the particular significance of this visit.
Prachanda has made the visit when senior Maoist leaders have been blaming foreign powers for the army-chief episode that led to their stepping down from the government. Some of the Maoist leaders have openly blamed India for that. So, can this visit be seen as the UCPN (Maoist) trying to seek the support of China, as another regional power?
I think it is correct, really, really. Even India once supported the Maoists. The Maoists and other parties can come to China regularly. The Chinese Communist Party also has good relations with the Nepali Congress and the UML. Now, during Prachanda’s visit, if he raised these issues of foreign interference with his Chinese counterpart, the Chinese side will also exchange views. For example, if Prachanda raised this question to Mr. Hu (Chinese president Hu Zintao), then Hu can also express his viewpoint.
But it’s not like what some Indian leaders do. India just interferes in internal affairs of Nepal. About this incident you just mentioned (about the army chief episode), I just heard from a number of leading politicians and figures of Nepal that this incident was completely manipulated by the Indian side.
Do you think Beijing also looks at it the same way?
I just speak my own view, nobody tells me the government’s viewpoint. As a scholar I do view things myself and I have quite a number of channel of information. Many Nepalese friends told me that it was all manipulated by India. And I also watched the developments in the web. The UML at first supported Prachanda’s action to sack Katwal but later the foreign minister of India telephoned Mr. Khanal (UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal) and asked him not to support Prachanda’s action. This is a direct interference. So I believe what Nepalese friends told me. All this was manipulated by India side.
The Chinese government too must have been monitoring the developments. What do you think is its view?
I don’t know, I cannot speak on behalf of the Chinese government. I speak for myself.
You mentioned that exchanging the views on issues of common concern was the policy of the Chinese Communist Party. What could be the issues of common concern between the UCPN (Maoist) and the Chinese Communist Party?
In my viewpoint the stability of Nepal is a matter of common concern. Nepali people wish to see the peace process to be complete and China is also concerned about the peace process because it wants to see peaceful environment for the benefit of economic development. Issues like international terrorism, economic development and cooperation are the other issues of common concern.
You said earlier that Maoists were seeking Chinese support, does Beijing too see the UCPN (Maoist) as its possible trusted ally in Nepal, especially after the end of monarchy?
China’s main foreign policy is not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. China deals with the authority of the country. In the past, the monarchy ruled Nepal and therefore China had to deal with monarchy. Now the situation has changed and it is the internal affair of Nepal. Besides establishing a good relation with the government, the Chinese Communist Party also tries to make good relations with political parties of other parties. It already has good relation with the Nepali Congress and the UML and since the UCPN (Maoist) has become legalised in Nepal, China certainly likes to establish good relation with this party as well. And the developments have proved that Maoists are more energetic and one of the most patriotic forces in Nepal. Comparatively they have more potential to influence in the unification of all patriotic forces in Nepal for progress in the economic field and social development. This may be a point.
So you think Beijing has pinned high hopes on the Maoists.
I think that may be a point. What Prachanda spoke to Mr. Hu I don’t know but I can just imagine what topic they may have discussed.
You must have some idea about what did the two talk.
I cannot make irresponsible remarks in this matter. But I estimate that certainly they talked about how to achieve stability in Nepal for development of both the countries and how the two countries and the two parties can cooperate in the days to come. I think these were the major topics.
You have been stressing on stability of Nepal, but many analysts believe that China and India compete to increase influence in the region and therefore countries like Nepal ultimately suffer.
I don’t think China has such an intention to compete for influence. I think India very strongly likes to compete. The psycho of few politicians and members of the ruling class in India is not normal. China upholds the principle of progress, development and the win-win concept. But whatever kind of work China is doing in Nepal or any other country, India views it as a threat. This psycho is not normal.
The number of China study centres in Nepal is on the rise and many Indian analysts and observers have raised their eyebrows on that.
I have read some rumours about that. China study centres in Nepal are independent ones and they try to help introduce China in other countries. For a long time India has tried to control Nepal. Some of the senior Indian officials have made public statements that they would turn Nepal into second Bhutan. Whatever China does in Nepal – whether it gets involved into any project in Nepal or if there is any Chinese visit -- India views it in a suspicious way.
Prachanda’s visit to China has come just when his party has not been able to patch up with the UML and Nepali Congress and as you said China is concerned with the instability in Nepal. So, is it that Beijing will now have special relation with the Maoists?
I don’t think it is about any special relation. Since Mr. Prachanda’s party became legal quite recently and it has no experience on how to run the country, and therefore perhaps they like to consult their Chinese friends to take the peace process ahead and for development. They can raise these kind of questions and the Chinese side can respond according to their experience for their reference. I have read news items in the internet about what Prachanda said after he returned from China. He has said talks are his priority rather than protests. I think that is a good move. I am optimistic that the stalemate will be over in the near future.
Some Indian analysts say that Chinese foreign ministry had openly offered to help train Maoists’ ex-fighters so that they all could be integrated into the Nepalese army and that was a matter of big concern to India.
I think some Indian officials are not responsible and some Indian media fabricate facts. When the Maoists were in the government, Mr. (Ram Bahadur) Thapa, the then defence minister visited China once. As the line minister, he perhaps discussed with the Chinese side about the possibility of future development. At that time the Nepalese government was considering about how to integrate the two armies – the national army and the Maoist army. Every country has to have a single army. I guess they may have discussed about the possible military cooperation in the future. I guess it was a topic about the two armies. Mr. Thapa was here as a government minister and not as someone with the UCPN (Maoist). If the Chinese government provides military aid to Nepal it will be through the government and that will be a state-to-state affair. What you mentioned about India’s viewpoint, it is baseless.
In the beginning of this interview you said China had no relation with the Maoists before 2006 when they were still fighting as a rebel group that took its name from your leader’s name. So, why Beijing chose to have relation with it only now?
That is because they have legalised now. They have even come to power and have become one of the ruling parties of Nepal. Chinese Communist Party does not establish relation with parties of other countries on the basis of ideology. Before the cold war, ideology mattered. But after the cold war the policy was completely changed. You see nowadays Chinese Communist Party has a good relation with Mr. Putin’s party, which is a communist party and the relation is much better than before. A lot depends on what kind of policy does the foreign party carry out. The Maoist party of Nepal is very keen in maintaining Nepal’s independence and sovereignty.
But is it also not true that Nepal’s Maoists are not having good relation with India and China sees that as an advantage?
We like to see the Nepalese parties having good relation with both India and China. That is how we think a harmonious area could be established. The Chinese Communist Party does not develop relation with the parties of other countries with a pre-condition. Influencing the parties that have bad relation with India, this is not the policy of Chinese Communist Party.
