On a recent visit to Beijing, I had the distinct opportunity to meet with Director Zhu Weiqun, Standing Committee member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and chairman of the ethnic and religious affairs committee of China’s top advisory body and official spokesperson on Tibet.

A man of reason

It was an encounter I attached great importance to, on account of myself hailing from the Himalayan region, of which Tibet is an integral part. Of course, developments in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) have a direct impact on both the domestic situation of Nepal as well as on Nepal’s foreign affairs, particularly in terms of our relations with the People’s Republic of China but also concerning larger geopolitical issues on account of the West’s continued interest in Tibet. Nepal shares extensive land boundaries with the TAR of approximately 1,400 kilometres.

Sitting at the same dinner table with Director Zhu, I was struck by his personality, which was rather at odds with the image created of him by some sections of the international media with which I had become familiar over the years. He appeared as an exceptionally gentle, soft-spoken, courteous and reasonable individual, simple yet exuding a quality of discipline and concentration that must have been developed over a long career.

After all, Zhu Weiqun, since at least his 1998 appointment as Vice Minister of the United Front Work Department, has been in charge of a delicate situation related to Tibet that attracts sustained worldwide attention. Subjected to such intense international scrutiny and not always receiving constructive external support and understanding for the important and difficult work he carries out, it would be useful here to annotate some aspects of his contribution, which pertains to his interest in history.    

As I was being introduced that evening to Director Zhu, he instantly interjected to say that he knew of my family since his primary school years and went on to make the point that Nepal has always extended great support to China on the issue of Tibet, for which he expressed gratitude. Indeed, Nepal has consistently upheld the One-China Policy and has pledged on every occasion that it will not allow anti-China activities to be perpetrated from Nepali soil.

Nepal’s Tibet stance

On the other hand, given Nepal’s historical connection with the Tibetan region going back to the ancient and medieval period—and including the modern era, which, in the case of Nepal, begins in approximately 1768 with the unification of the country under King Pritivi Narayan Shah—Kathmandu and Lhasa have become closely connected by way of trade relations and the movement of people plus socio-cultural and religious influences by means of which Nepal and inland China have become intimately linked. In short, what happens in the TAR is of vital concern to Nepal.

What many commentators fail to recognise is that Nepal, perhaps more than any other country in the world, has an enormous stake in a peaceful and stable Tibet. This point assumes even greater relevance for Nepal considering the many years of political volatility that has wreaked havoc on the economic development of the country. An economically prosperous and socially stable Tibet is in fact a sine quo non for the future prosperity of the Nepali state, placed as she is between India in the south and China to the north.    

It is exactly the historical backdrop mentioned above that has animated and defined Nepal’s long-standing position on the Tibet issue. And this has served as a basis for mutual trust and mutual gain in the bilateral relationship. Unlike some countries in the West that appear to take the moral high-ground and lecture from a bully pulpit—engaging the issue apparently more in terms of political expediency rather than otherwise—Nepal is a country that shares actual land-boundaries with the TAR. The social stabilisation and development of the TAR is beneficial to Nepal: any kind of turbulence there will directly and literally spill across the Himalayas and exert an immediate impact on developments in the country.

Western distortions

Speaking of history, Director Zhu Weiqun has done outstanding work in terms of consistently directing the outside world’s attention to events of the past. As recently as in his article published on February 19 and also harkening back to his various meetings with foreign officials and scholars, particularly a discussion he held in Brussels with a large group of Europeans in 2012, Director Zhu spoke at length about the events of history as a way to make sense of the present.

This is something that requires special attention from foreigners such as myself who wish to better understand exactly why Tibet is so importance and sensitive to China. De facto, in some assessments

of the Tibet issue, how many of us today actually take into account China’s ‘century of humiliation’ and her people’s sentiments encompassing the period between roughly the mid 19th to the mid 20th century

when China was subject to violent infringements on her sovereignty and when the sheer greed of external powers ruined the fabric of a society with such a glorious civilisational history?

Unfortunately, on one hand, our appreciation of history is in fact clouded (distorted) now by an image of China projected in the global media that presents her as a ‘superpower’; on the other hand, some prejudice is cast on China’s modernisation. However, it says a great deal about the wisdom of the Communist Party of China to insist that China is still only a moderately prosperous society, which means that China’s leadership has not forgotten history and has a sober assessment of China’s development.

Director Zhu has certainly not forgotten history. In response to a query by a member of the audience in Brussels concerning human rights and the preservation of traditional culture, he responded by saying, “Why did the Communist Party of China start a revolution those many years ago? One of the tasks of the revolution was to resist the invasion by imperialist countries, including some European ones. Not so long ago, some European countries twice launched wars of invasion in Tibet. In the 1904 war, the invading army used a ‘civilised’ modern cannon in a ravine to massacre 600 of our Tibetan compatriots. At that time who among you spoke on behalf of the human rights of the Tibetan people?”    

Koirala is Director of the Nepal Institute of International and Strategic Studies and a PhD student conducting research on diplomatic history at Peking University