Close ties bring benefits beyond diplomacy

The search for Malaysians reported missing after the devastating flash floods in Nepal is, first and foremost, a humanitarian emergency.

Families need information, while Malaysian officials must work through damaged infrastructure, disrupted communications and some of the world’s most difficult terrain in the world.

But beyond the immediate rescue effort, the disaster offers an important foreign-policy lesson. Malaysia needs strong relations with Nepal, China and India simultaneously.

Such relationships are not merely about trade agreements, investments, diplomatic visits or summit declarations.

When Malaysians encounter danger abroad, good bilateral relations can become practical channels for information, coordination and assistance.

The floods struck Nepal’s Rasuwa district near the frontier with Tibet. Geography therefore matters enormously.

The Himalayas may be divided by international borders, but rivers, mountain passes, transportation networks and natural disasters do not necessarily respect them.

Nepal is, naturally, Malaysia’s most important partner in locating missing Malaysians.

Nepalese authorities exercise sovereignty over the affected territory.

Their police, armed forces, disaster-management agencies, tourism authorities and local communities possess the knowledge necessary to determine where foreign travellers were last seen and where rescue operations should be concentrated.

This illustrates why diplomatic relations matter during emergencies.

Embassies are sometimes viewed as institutions primarily responsible for official visits, economic promotion and diplomatic protocol.

Yet when citizens disappear overseas, embassies become part of a country's emergency-response infrastructure.

Nepal, however, sits between two Asian giants.

To its north lies China.

The affected region is close to Tibet and the Nepal-China frontier.

China possesses significant transportation infrastructure, satellite capabilities, emergency-response resources and administrative networks across its side of the Himalayas.

Malaysia’s relationship with Beijing therefore cannot be measured solely through economics.

China has long been Malaysia’s largest trading partner. But mature bilateral relations should extend beyond exports, investments and industrial projects.

Strong government-to-government channels allow Kuala Lumpur to seek information and assistance whenever Malaysians encounter emergencies where Chinese capabilities or geographical proximity may prove valuable.

To Nepal’s south lies India. India possesses enormous logistical advantages in responding to emergencies in Nepal.

The two countries share a long and unusually open border. India’s armed forces and disaster-response agencies also possess extensive experience operating in Himalayan conditions.

Malaysia therefore needs an equally substantive relationship with New Delhi.

The Nepal disaster demonstrates the limitations of interpreting Asia solely through the prism of China-India competition.

Malaysia does not need to choose between Beijing and New Delhi.

Indeed, Malaysian interests are better served by maintaining strong relations with both.

During a Himalayan emergency, China can potentially contribute information, technology and logistical capabilities from the north.

India possesses substantial humanitarian and transportation capabilities from the south.

Nepal remains the sovereign state responsible for coordinating rescue operations within its territory.

Their capabilities can therefore be complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

This is why Malaysia’s foreign policy must remain pragmatic, independent and non-exclusive.

Strategic autonomy does not mean remaining distant from major powers. Neutrality does not mean indifference either.

It means maintaining sufficient diplomatic room to cooperate with different countries according to Malaysia’s interests and circumstances. The lesson extends to Asean.

Southeast Asia increasingly operates amid US-China competition, India’s rise and growing geopolitical fragmentation.

Smaller and middle powers face recurring pressure to align themselves with particular strategic camps.

Malaysia should resist unnecessary binary choices. Disasters demonstrate why.

Geography frequently demands cooperation precisely when geopolitics encourages separation.

Malaysia therefore needs diplomatic depth: a broad network of trusted relationships so that when one route, institution or communication channel fails, another can potentially be activated.

This becomes increasingly important as Malaysians travel, study, work and invest across the world.

Foreign policy, ultimately, is about people as much as power.

Malaysia needs Nepal because Malaysians travel there. Malaysia needs India because its geography and capabilities make it indispensable to South Asia.

Malaysia needs China because its economic weight, geographical position and strategic resources make it equally consequential.

Friendship with one should never require hostility towards another.

The Nepal tragedy therefore reinforces a longstanding Malaysian diplomatic instinct: cultivate many friendships while preserving strategic autonomy.

In peaceful times, these relationships generate trade, tourism, investment and diplomatic influence.

When catastrophe strikes, their value becomes far more fundamental.

They may help Malaysia bring its people home. May the force be with all.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.