|
"Vulnerability’
best sums up the plight of small states in any discourse
on security. Many size factors interplay to entangle
most small states in a network of insecurities, and
smallness has seldom been beautiful. Small states have
often been the ‘objects of conquest’ in
the big powers’ scramble for dominion during the
colonial and cold war periods. They have been conquered,
cornered, exploited and reduced to mere buffer states
or pawns in war-games, sometimes changing many hands,
since their military – the traditional guarantor
of security – was weak.
A normative shift in the concept of security today brought
about by uni-polar world and the process of globalization
does no good either, despite existing international
law and post-Kuwait,
-cold
war norms. The new security threat is more subtle,
dangerous and difficult to contain. While the old military
threat still looms large, new forces working across
borders are beyond their control, and this complicates
the security situation further. How will small states
fare under this new world order? There are both opportunities
and challenges arising from both the realist and idealist
world orders and the process of globalization.
Bhutan is a small Buddhist
kingdom with an area of 40,076 square kilometers landlocked
between India
and China.
These two Asian giants have asymmetric geography, demography,
economy, military, natural resource endowments and civilizations
vis-à-vis Bhutan. But these two regional powers
have been competitors, not partners in the regions,
thus creating a difficult atmosphere for its small neighbours.
Like Nepal,
Bhutan is like ‘a yam between two boulders’
and this geo-strategic location makes Bhutan so important
in big neighbours’ perception of s ecurity.
Bhutan
has never been colonized and as a result Bhutanese society
has traditionally been sensitive to the issues of security,
and preserving its sovereignty,
independence
and territorial integrity has historically been a constant
challenge. The two great world wars and cold
war have spared Bhutan unlike its neighbours. However,
it was the focus of big powers politics – Tibetans
and Mongols
from north, and the British India
from the south. Today they are replaced by China
and India.
Bhutan fought seven wars in the north and three in the
south to protect its territorial sovereignty.
Its long history and tradition of political independence,
UN
membership, political leaderships and successful bilateral
and multilateral politics have indeed played a big part
in avoiding the fates of its neighbours – integration
of Tibet
with China
(1959) and Sikkim
to India
(1976). Bhutan closed its old historical ties with Tibet
(China)
due to various political and historical reasons. The
geography, moreover, favoured India,
for Himalaya
barred an easy access to the north. Today, Bhutan’s
relation with China
remains frozen like Himalayan
ice itself, while Bhutan-India
relation burns like heat of Indian tropics. But the
global shift in the regional and international relations
mostly brought about by forces of globalization
is changing this status quo.
Read
More
Any
nation as a biological entity, requires to
protect against from foreign invasions. Its well-defined
foreign and security policy immunizes and insulates
it against any foreign invasion. Every nation big or
small, has the right to protect itself and pursue an
independent foreign and security policy. But the case
about Bhutan is different. Its former rulers have pledged
its foreign and security policy in the hands of India.
In terms of Article 2 of Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949,
India
claims suzerainty over Bhutan in the conduct of its
foreign and security policy, unless it is amended by
mutual consent. So far, Bhutan has not asked for its
amendment. Bhutan's security contradictions have resurfaced
again in the last month.
|
