State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan has completed his three-day official visit, the highest Chinese visit to Nepal since the February 1 (2005) royal takeover. The two countries signed an agreement allowing a large number of Nepali products (the list is yet to be finalised) a duty-free access to the Chinese market. Also signed was the agreement under which the northern neighbour will provide a grant-in-aid worth Rs.180 million. Amid the economic importance of the visit, its political implications have not gone unnoticed. In a significant gesture, the Chinese leader also met opposition political leaders, including Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala.

Addressing a lunchon reception jointly organised by the China Study Centre and the Chinese embassy in the capital, he called on the foreigners to stay off Nepal’s internal affairs, on the one hand, saying that ‘the Nepali government and people have the political wisdom and ability to solve their own problems; on the other, he hoped that “all constitutional forces in Nepal will seek to appropriately settle the current difficulties through dialogue, based on the maintenance of Nepal’s independence, sovereignty and national unification”. He stressed the importance of ‘peace, stability, development and prosperity’ in Nepal to ‘regional peace, stability and development’. China has considered the present conflict in Nepal as purely an ‘internal matter’. Of late, however, it has started speaking of the need for dialogue.

Does that phrase ‘constitutional forces’ exclude the Maoists? If so — and probably it does — doesn’t that mean a departure from China’s longstanding policy of non-interference? The Maoists too are Nepalis, and have emerged as a major political force, though armed, in the country, and the palace-parties rapprochement alone is not going to resolve the problem. But the palace-parties patchup will clear the way for the resumption of lethal military hardware. How does China want the conflict resolved by ignoring the Maoists, all the more so in the context of the just reached second understanding between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance that seeks to strengthen the 12-point understanding between them. The only alternative to leaving out the Maoists is continued armed confrontation to the detriment of the country. One may then wonder if the Chinese and American stands do not ultimately lead up to support for the military suppression of the Maoists. It is a moot point whether support, military or diplomatic, for one side in a domestic conflict at the cost of another, does not constitute interference of sorts.