Article Archives  >  March, 2009

Since the global financial crisis began, “Washington Consensus” models of development have been discredited. Developing nations seek alternatives to the Washington Consensus. Nowhere is this feeling stronger than Asia. Enter the Himalayan Consensus. Finding acceptance from Dhaka to Islamabad, from Kathmandu to Lhasa, it is now being discussed in Beijing. Nepal's Prime Minister Prachanda says, "This Himalayan Consensus is special given the unique physical and spiritual dimension of this region, and the political and economic institutions developing here should encompass these ideas."

The Himalayan region is a tinderbox. The Obama administration will increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by committing an additional 17,000 troops which will escalate the conflict there. China’s police-military lockdown on Tibet and Xinjiang continues into a second year. Kashmir lacks a mutually acceptable solution between India and Pakistan. The Maoist government recently elected to power in Nepal after a decade of civil war offers hopes for stability. Both sides of the Himalayan range should be viewed as a string of interconnected political electrons that could be sparked at any time. Regions of Tibet and Xinjiang are ethnically, culturally, and spiritually connected with the other side of the mountains. The Himalayas traditionally served more as bridge than a barrier. We should try to think this way in our own policy, particularly as we learn that terrorism needs to be addressed at its root cause, rather than end effect.