The Himalayan plateau spreads across Afghanistan,
Throughout much of history, the Himalayas served as a bridge, not a barrier, integrating rather than separating ethnic affiliations. In modern times, however, national boundaries have divided ethnic groups otherwise connected by traditions, religions, and cultural mindsets. Many local populations continue to dispute territories claimed by individual countries.
By adopting these historically recent geographic boundaries to shape foreign policies, many of the world’s largest and most powerful countries have limited the success of efforts to increase stability in this region. An example of this is the US State Department’s division of Asia by geography into South and Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, rather than by a consideration and evaluation of ethnic, religious, or cultural similarities.
The Himalayan region should be as important to policymakers in Washington as to those in Beijing and Delhi. Tensions in this area are more likely to boil over than those in North Korea, and Taiwan. Fortunately, it is not too late for a reformulation of foreign policy approaches to the Himalayan region.
A Very Real Potential for Instability
Poverty is a very real issue in the Himalayan region. Forty percent of the world’s poor live in the Himalayas. In Nepal, 42 percent of the population lives in poverty; in Pakistan 33 percent, India 29 percent, and Bhutan 23 percent. Ethnic minorities in China’s western regions represent only 10 percent of China’s total population, but account for 40-50 percent of its absolute poor. In many of these countries, the situation of the poor is growing worse. Foreign and domestic investment for industrial and economic development in the Himalayan region remains hampered by social instability, corruption, lack of transparency, and fears of future financial insecurity. The twin factors of significant numbers of poor and little hope for a better future produce a population that blames the outside, feels ignored, and has little to lose.
The increasing number of US troops in Afghanistan inserts an unknown variable into the futures of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir region, and China’s Xinjiang region. Local populations often view outside military intervention, regardless of intent, with contempt and as further evidence of the failure of the ‘outside’ world to recognize local realities. This view, combined with extreme levels of poverty, hopelessness, and insecurity about the ability to provide for basic needs such as water, fills the ranks of terrorist and marginal groups. The geographic reach of these groups and the associated violence is increasing, spreading throughout the region and unsettling minority populations in individual countries such as China. The historic ties between populations within these countries aggravates the situation, as local people may feel stronger commitment to their brothers ‘across the border’ than to those down the street.
An additional consideration in any evaluation of the stability of the Himalayan region is the relationship between China and India, the two largest economies in the region. Each country maintains de facto administration over territories claimed by the other. So far, this has produced a relatively stable compromise. However, several factors threaten the long-term viability of this policy. Both countries are focused on moving economic development towards undeveloped border areas. China also fears the instigation of violence and instability among minority populations occupying these border areas as tacitly supported by external forces. Finally, increasing nationalism (caused by domestic pressures in each country) hampers the ability of leaders to negotiate. Think tanks in each country have predicted war by 2012, albeit such views may be extreme.
The final, newest and perhaps greatest factor contributing to the high potential for instability in the Himalayan region is climate change. The entire region is now faced with the threat of water scarcity resulting from glacier attrition. The failure of the three major CO2 emitters – China, the US, and India – to reach any substantive agreement on combating environmental changes at Copenhagen in December 2009 has stalled global environmental protection efforts. In the Himalayan region, this is perceived as evidence of the world’s inability to recognize and address issues that the region considers imminent and highly destabilizing. We have seen the heated debates in the Southeastern and Southwestern United States surrounding water shortages and control of water sources. It should not be difficult to imagine how these same challenges would play out in regions lacking ‘evolved’ dispute resolution mechanisms.
How to Bring the Parties to the Same Table?
There is no one-stop solution to the problems aggravating instability in the Himalayas. The starting point is getting key players to the table and this requires a rallying point. Saving the Himalayan glaciers can be this common ground.
Scientific debate aside, the reality of glacial melt is obvious to those on the ground. In winter 2010, there is little snow on the Tibetan plateau, leaving major river systems drying and Sahara-type desertification spreading along the once mighty river banks of the Brahmaputra. Each of Asia’s great rivers originates in the Himalayan glaciers. Lower flows from the Himalayas into the Yangtze, Yellow, Mekong, Salaween, Irrawady, Brahmaputra, Ganges, and Indus rivers will leave two-thirds of the world’s population, living on two continents, without adequate water. Because of the economic, ethnic, and nationalistic pressures described above, without alternative venues, the results of climate change in the Himalayan region would most likely be resolved by violence, leading to cyclical social instability. On the other hand, tackling climate change and providing positive solutions can serve as a base for economic development, poverty alleviation, education and medical reform, and recognition and celebration of ethnic and cultural identities — all of which are crucial to ensuring the long-term stability of the Himalayan region.
The Himalayan Tri-lateral – A Practical Mechanism for Dialogue
Adopting a Himalayan Trilateral Commission between the three largest CO2 emitters – China, the US, and India – as key stakeholders in glacial melt and regional water security is a key policy objective that each country can support. Moreover, these three countries, as the largest CO2 emitters, are pressed to bring a solution – or at least a practical proposal – to the table at the next UN climate change summit to be held in Cancun in December.
While joint scientific and policy work on CO2 emissions and their direct effects upon the Himalayan glaciers may lead the agenda, water security and related ethnic and economic issues are intertwined. As such, the Himalayan Trilateral Commission while having a primary objective of managing water security, would also have the secondary charge of providing a forum for dialogue over and coordinating policy for complex ethic, religious, and other indigenous issues.
Original membership and funding would be based on CO2 emission criteria. Given the current diplomatic atmosphere, the Himalayan Trilateral Commission may get a better reception if the idea is presented as being initiated by China, with India signing on, and the US lending full support to the region through its participation. Logically, the largest C02 emitters should be the vanguard in combating the impacts of glacial melt, but practically these nations also have incentives to spearhead efforts to avoid the instability that would threaten theirs’ and the world’s security. While initially a trilateral, the Commission’s long-term success would depend on the inclusion of other stakeholder nations of the Himalayas. Stability in the region cannot be achieved without recognition and consideration of the suffering that will be felt by all bordering nations when water shortages arise due to glacial melt and the influence this would have on complex ethnic and economic tensions.
Both the primary and secondary objectives of the Himalayan Trilateral Commission cannot be achieved without the establishment of a fund (donated to and managed by the three largest CO2 emitters). This fund would provide resources to coordinate policy and establish programs toward three primary goals: (1) the establishment and enforcement of environmental standards; (2) poverty alleviation; and (3) improving education and medical care. Because of the ethnic, cultural, and economic realities of the region, any policy or program must be based upon principles that empower individuals and provides them with tools to create sustainable economic success. This type of ground-up policy is more attractive to indigenous groups and provides a stark contrast to the more widespread and popularly rejected alien, top-down approaches.
Additionally, the principles underlying the Himalayan Trilateral Commission approach outlined here are relevant to other parts of the world where climate change is inextricably connected to poverty and social instability. The Mexican government is currently working on a proposal for a Green Fund employing concepts which parallel those of the Himalayan Trilateral Commission. An acknowledgement by China, the US, and India of a need for such an approach is essential to the success of any attempt to tackle climate change. The time has come for parties to seek creative approaches for cooperation and move away from deadlocked confrontation. By coming to Mexico City with a Himalayan Tri-lateral, the US, India, and China can demonstrate a sincere intention to address climate change and its impacts, and move in a direction that can achieve broad global support.
Seeking Cooperation Rather Than Conflict
The Himalayan Trilateral Commission initiative also offers a platform upon which all the parties can find a common goal adopting a fresh approach, thereby avoiding previous fossilized positions, which have already become intractable. The Himalayan Trilateral Commission approach timed in sequence running up to climate change talks in Mexico City this December, presents the parties as seeking a win-win situation that will have global benefits for all. It offers a badly needed breakthrough in US-China relations, which has become exacerbated over recent months. Such an out-of-the box approach is needed now particularly when more traditional attempts at dialogue have stalemated.
The Himalayan Trilateral Commission will not eliminate terrorism. However, it can ease fears of local populations, reducing poverty and combating disillusionment, factors that incubate social unrest and fundamentalism. It’s time for policymakers in all three capitals to recognize that issues of environment, ethnic identity, sustainable economic development, and security must be dealt with in concert.
Laurence J. Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist, author, hotelier and restaurateur based in Beijing, China. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm – The Himalayan Consensus – an innovative approach to development. The Himalayan Consensus emphasizes empowering people with local pragmatism in place of broad sweeping globalized ideology and theory.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate