We know that it was
possible for certain small countries to remain neutral during
World-War 1 and World-War 2. In more recent times however, the
closest thing to being neutral during a major war is to be a
“No-Man's-Land,” which is to be uninvolved in the battle but not
exempt from being on the line of fire. Whereas the ultimate decision-makers of a nation's neutrality were the citizens
of that nation itself, in the decision to make a nation a
No-Man's-Land, external more powerful nations are in-charge. So in
one sense the transformation of a nation from neutral to
No-Man's-Land has to do with the loss of the ability of its citizens
from taking and implementing firm decisions regarding the situation
and significance of their own territory.
In the case of Nepal,
which would greatly benefit from being neutral in any war, its quite
recent experience with war will be emphasized by more powerful
nations to suggest that it can cope with or handle the event of a
major international war. However, the violent recent history of
Nepal will not be emphasized too much, because too much emphasis on
that violent history will encourage Nepal to participate in major war
by choosing one side, when in fact Nepal is most important in the
major war context only as a No-Man's-Land.
The
conversion of Nepal into a No-Man's-Land is evident in the many road
construction projects ongoing in Nepal. What Nepali
citizens believe to be improvements on their roads are rather the
construction of World-War-esque trenches, for possible trench warfare
between more powerful nations which could begin at any time.
International war that occurs these days will be dislocated from
disputed territories, in a kind of “war-tourism” when a nation
advertises its trenches as ideal for foreign armies to conduct
warfare. But the fate of Nepalis is to suffer collateral
damage, as bullets meant to hurt a non-Nepali will fly dangerously
through Nepali territory.
